query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
5da441999cfba9af78f378b7a571b06f
|
Why does it take so long to refund to credit card?
|
[
{
"docid": "213bfb9c6674440fc32a5733bc2f5010",
"text": "\"It's not usually apparent to the average consumer, but there's actually two stages to collecting a payment, and two ways to undo it. The particular combination that occurs may lead to long refund times, on top of any human delays (like Ben Miller's answer addresses). When you pay with a credit card, it is typically only authorized - the issuing bank says \"\"I'm setting this money aside for this transaction\"\", but no money actually changes hands. You'll typically see this on your statement as a \"\"pending\"\" charge. Only later, in a process called \"\"settlement\"\", does your bank actually send money to the merchant's bank. Typically, this process starts the same day that the authorization happens (at close of business), but it may take a few days to complete. In the case of an ecommerce transaction, the merchant may not be allowed to start it until they ship whatever you ordered. On the flip side, a given transaction can be voided off or money can be sent back to your card. In the first case, the transaction will just disappear altogether; in the second, it may disappear or you may see both the payment and the refund on your statement. Voids can be as fast as an authorization, but once a transaction has started settlement, it can't be voided any more. Sending money back (a \"\"refund\"\") goes through the same settlement process as above, and can take just as long. So, to specifically apply that to your question: You get the SMS when the transaction is authorized, even though no money has yet moved. The refund money won't show up until several days after someone indicates that it should happen, and there's no \"\"reverse authorize\"\" operation to let you or your bank know that it's coming.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64cd036c71b8081ea467e1e9221de6ba",
"text": "The holdup is from the merchant. To protect themselves, a merchant requires payment before giving you your purchased item/service. That is why you are charged immediately. When getting a refund, the same reason applies. The merchant needs to ensure that you are returning the correct item, or that it is still good, or that you are not trying to defraud the merchant in some way. Once the merchant processes that refund, it is all over for them, and they have no recourse later if they find out they were cheated. That is why they wait a while: the delay gives them time to discover any problems.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "22d806018b64100f766b4cb2237967d7",
"text": "That transaction probably cost the merchant $0.50 + 3% or close to $5. They should have refunded your credit card so they could have recouped some of the fees. (I imagine that's why big-box retailers like Home Depot always prefer to put it back on your card than give you store credit) Consider yourself lucky you made out with $0.15 this time. (Had they refunded your card, the 1% of $150 credit would have gone against next month's reward) Once upon a time folks were buying money from the US Mint by the tens of thousands $ range and receiving credit card rewards, then depositing the money to pay it off.. They figured that out and put a stop to it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9954b7e63149a195ebd3ca8937109557",
"text": "They will credit your account and it will be applied to future purchases. If the credit card is not used for several months, they will send you a check or transfer it to your bank account. Some people on this site have actually considered sending money to the credit card company in advance, so that the amount that can be charged is temporarily inflated. Keep in mind they will eventually refund the money. Plus you will not earn interest on the refund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78baeb01f4e7246bbd0c988371c2491f",
"text": "\"Personally, I would just dispute this one with your CC. I had a situation where a subscription I had cancelled the prior year was billed to me. I called up to have a refund issued, they couldn't find me in their system under three phone numbers and two addresses. The solution they proposed was \"\"send us your credit card statement with the charge circled,\"\" to which I responded \"\"there's no way in hell I'm sending you my CC statement.\"\" Then I disputed the charge with the CC bank and it was gone about two days later. I partially expect to have the same charge appear next year when they try to renew my non-existent subscription again. Now, whether or not this is a normal practice for the company, or just a call center person making a good-faith but insecure attempt to solve your problem is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, you tried to resolve this with the merchant and the merchant asked for something that's likely outside the bounds of your CC Terms and Conditions; sending your entire number via email. Dispute it and move on. The dispute process exists for a reason.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7be1da953541e9ce40e4598da9a824e4",
"text": "\"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, \"\"lag time\"\", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6754dfd6483eae8339ab3e82202eee70",
"text": "\"For customer accounts that you have with a merchant, normally a positive balance in the account is what you owe the merchant. When you have a credit on the account or a negative balance, it usually means that it is an amount that the merchant owes you. This could be because you paid too much, or perhaps it is because the merchant is giving you a refund for some reason. However, it is always a possibility that this particular merchant is not using the terminology in the conventional way. If you aren't sure, the best thing to do is to ask the merchant directly by contacting their customer service department. Just judging from the screenshot you posted, it looks to me like they owe you some money. I suggest you click the \"\"Statement\"\" button; it looks like that will generate some type of statement that will instruct the merchant to send you a refund. But that is only a guess. Their customer service should be able to tell you what to do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f4c44d93e9656e5590d50d88174d087",
"text": "\"The preferred accounts are designed to hope you do one of several things: Pay one day late. Then charge you all the deferred interest. Many people think If they put $X a month aside, then pay just before the 6 months, 12 moths or no-payment before 2014 period ends then I will be able to afford the computer, carpet, or furniture. The interest rate they will charge you if you are late will be buried in the fine print. But expect it to be very high. Pay on time, but now that you have a card with their logo on it. So now you feel that you should buy the accessories from them. They hope that you become a long time customer. They want to make money on your next computer also. Their \"\"Bill Me Later\"\" option on that site as essentially the same as the preferred account. In the end you will have another line of credit. They will do a credit check. The impact, both positive and negative, on your credit picture is discussed in other questions. Because two of the three options you mentioned in your question (cash, debit card) imply that you have enough cash to buy the computer today, there is no reason to get another credit card to finance the purchase. The delayed payment with the preferred account, will save you about 10 dollars (2000 * 1% interest * 0.5 years). The choice of store might save you more money, though with Apple there are fewer places to get legitimate discounts. Here are your options: How to get the limit increased: You can ask for a temporary increase in the credit limit, or you can ask for a permanent one. Some credit cards can do this online, others require you to talk to them. If they are going to agree to this, it can be done in a few minutes. Some individuals on this site have even been able to send the check to the credit card company before completing the purchase, thus \"\"increasing\"\" their credit limit. YMMV. I have no idea if it works. A good reason to use the existing credit card, instead of the debit card is if the credit card is a rewards card. The extra money or points can be very nice. Just make sure you pay it back before the bill is due. In fact you can send the money to the credit card company the same day the computer arrives in the mail. Having the transaction on the credit card can also get you purchase protection, and some cards automatically extend the warranty.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6af3c71153cd6f76bcfda075408eb03d",
"text": "It is barely possible that this is Citi's fault, but it sounds more like it is on the Costco end. The way that this is supposed to work is that they preauthorize your card for the necessary amount. That reserves the payment, removing the money from your credit line. On delivery, they are supposed to capture the preauthorization. That causes the money to transfer to them. Until that point, they've reserved your payment but not actually received it. If you cancel, then they don't have to pay processing fees. The capture should allow for a larger sale so as to provide for tips, upsells, and unanticipated taxes and fees. In this case, instead of capturing the preauthorization, they seem to have simply generated a new transaction. Citi could be doing something wrong and processing the capture incorrectly. Or Costco could be doing a purchase when they should be doing a capture. From outside, we can't really say. The thirty days would seem to be how long Costco can schedule in advance. So the preauthorization can last that long for them. Costco should also have the ability to cancel a preauthorization. However, they may not know how to trigger that. With smaller merchants, they usually have an interface where they can view preauthorizations and capture or cancel them. Costco may have those messages sent automatically from their system. Note that a common use for this pattern is with things like gasoline or delivery purchases. If this has been Citi/Costco both times, I'd try ordering a pizza or some other delivery food and see if they do it correctly. If it was Citi both times and a different merchant the other time, then it's probably a Citi problem rather than a merchant problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0088551e56693f9713c06610f68b44f1",
"text": "You can't make your bank do a charge back. This function is to assist with straight up fraud, not a customer service mistake. (Think spoofed or stolen card or if a vendor intentionally acted fraudulently.) While you may believe what they did is fraud, your bank will require that you provide the vendor with the opportunity to rectify the situation themselves. Trying to call back and giving up after a long hold time won't meet their standards. If banks started letting anyone unhappy with a vendor start doing charge backs, they would be doing nothing else all day. The issues you're describing has not reached the threshold for the bank to authorize a charge back. Comcast has local and regional offices, and you could go in person to speak with someone. Maybe there isn't one near you. There are non-peak hours which wait times will be less. You'll just have to grin and bear it if you truly want the money back. Then, take your business elsewhere and post bad reviews online. Always keep in mind that when you eventually speak with someone, they will not be the person that messed up, and you should be overly nice and polite to them. I promise it will yield far better results than being surly and demanding. Another way to get Comcast's attention would be to file a complaint with the BBB. It might take longer, but I've had this work with big companies, usually with good results. Again, be nice to whomever contacts you. In reference to your recent duplicate question: Mastercard won't be able to help at all. They play no part in the transaction at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66c921cb4de75060ffdc0fb8e688a1c2",
"text": "\"While I agree with Ben a lot I feel like his answer is really poor here. You do not call a number to give your credit card information out for a refund. That is ridiculous. Just from his answer - he has had 5 cases of fraud lately - you should know that you shouldn't follow this advice. I personally don't ever give my credit card number over the phone, unless it is the very very very last resort. It is not just about money and safety but it is about time. Every time that you give your number out over the phone there is a chance that the employee on the other end (by either scam or legitimate business) will use or sell your info. So you need to determine if the time saved by doing a transaction over the phone is worth hours/days of your time if your card has a fraud issue. And note that fraud sometimes is easily negated, but if done smartly can be hard to prove via a quick call or email to card company. What should you do? Tell company that you will simply get the refund through your credit card company. And if we go back to time element... You fill out form on card website. Card company goes back to vendor and says - \"\"Why are you asking for card numbers via email?\"\" Card company either cancels vendor contract or more likely helps them understand the technology available so they don't have to do this. Therefore that quick form that you filled out will now keep this company from bugging you again. By going through their archaic \"\"systems\"\" you are enabling their behavior.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37f6597e2e6a4b22e125e518e9a4d00f",
"text": "Bank products have been pretty common with tax refunds as well, and they are also being heavily scrutinized for the same reasons. Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) have been outlawed for future tax seasons due to lack of consumer protection. What is a bank product, you might ask? Rather than waiting 7-14 days for the a direct deposit from the IRS, a lot of places like H+R Block and Jackson Hewitt would offer a bank product to get you money quicker. For this service, they charge a fee (usually $99-$149) which is grossly overpriced for how little work it takes, but if your refund is several thousand dollars, you may not care. A Refund Anticipation Loan was the most predatory bank product, as it was an advance on your loan for the amount your expected refund. However, if there were any errors in your return and the IRS decided your refund was less than what your tax preparer calculated it to be, you were stuck with paying back the advance amount, leaving you to foot the bill for whatever errors your preparer may have made. These loans also had very high interest rates, since usually the people that wanted RALs were also the same people that rely upon cash advances. There are also Electronic Refund Checks (which ironically are paper checks for the consumer, not electronic deposits), direct deposits, and prepaid debit cards. Despite the fact that these same methods of refund payments are offered by the IRS themselves, preparers and banks alike sold these to collect fees for essentially no work. I'm not sure how similar these bank products for student loans are, but I wanted to shed some light on them anyways. Regardless of how badly you need money, **do not ever accept money through a bank product.** If it benefited you more, banks and preparers would not offer these. (Source: telemarketing at a tax preparation software company)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04ec40ba524d53671ccf2da3a8ecf9d8",
"text": "Your bank will convert it (taking a fee for that, of course). It might be delayed some days so it can clear (2-3 days).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e216b8086ba2920e1ff98ceb87590304",
"text": "Its not just late fees. The fees for going over your credit limit are exorbitant. To make things worse, they will rearrange the transactions you make during a day so that they can charge you more by making more of them fail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc28dfa716f66d5aff573a4d995cbf1a",
"text": "\"Executive summary: It sounds like the merchant just did an authorization then cancelled that authorization when you cancelled the order, so there was never an actual charge so you'll never see an actual refund and there's no money to \"\"claim\"\". More detail: From your second paragraph, it sounds like they just did an authorization but never posted the transaction. A credit card authorization is basically the merchant asking your credit card company \"\"Does sandi have enough credit to pay this amount and if so please reserve that amount for a bit.\"\" The authorization will decrease the total credit you have available on the card, but it's not actually a charge, so if your billing cycle ends, it won't show up on your statement. Depending on which company issued your credit card, you may be able to see the authorization online, usually labelled something like \"\"Pending transactions\"\". Even if your credit card company doesn't show pending transactions, you'll see a decrease in your available credit, however you shouldn't see an increase in your balance. The next step, and the only way the original merchant gets paid, is for the merchant to actually post a transaction to your card. Then it becomes a real charge that will show up on your next credit card statement and you'll be expected to pay it (unless you dispute the charge, but that's a different issue). If the charge is for the same amount as the authorization, the authorization will go away (it's now been converted to an actual charge). If the amounts are different, or the merchant never posts a transaction, the authorization will be removed by your credit card company automatically after a certain amount of time. So it sounds like you placed the order, the merchant did an authorization to make sure you could pay for it and to reserve the money, but then you cancelled the order before the merchant could post the transaction, so you were never really charged for it. The merchant then cancelled the authorization (going by the start of your third paragraph). So there was never an actual transaction posted, you were never charged, and you never really owed any money. Your available credit went down for a bit, but now should be restored to what it was before you placed the order. You'll never see an actual refund reflected on your credit card statement because there was no actual transaction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd8c7409b7e8aa91eec22d0b56fdad7b",
"text": "Each bank is different. Usually in my experience for newer credit card accounts, there is a specific number of days in a billing cycle (something like 28) and then a 20-25 day grace period. Older accounts usually have 30+ day billing cycles. Back in the 90's, many cards also had 30-40 day grace periods. The language specific to your card is in the card agreement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2ea0cf0c472d2cb95c2b6b9cdac798e",
"text": "\"They are right to ask for the money back because you were not entitled to that money. However, you may have a defense called \"\"laches\"\". Basically, you can try to show that because of the government's unreasonable delay in asking for the money back, in the meantime you relied on the assumption that it was your money in good faith, and spent it, and now to have to come up with the money that you assumed you wouldn't need would cause great harm to you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0ffbb12aa53a19e4c4a7225c5f0a54fa
|
Am I still building a credit score if I use my credit card like a debit card?
|
[
{
"docid": "eea62142409630f507da1c760d51d624",
"text": "\"I strongly suggest you look at CreditKarma and see how each aspect of what you are doing impacts your score. Here's my take - There's an anti-credit approach that many have which, to me, is over the top. \"\"Zero cards, zero credit\"\" feels to me like one step shy of \"\"off the grid.\"\" It's so far to the right that it actually is more of an effort than just playing the game a bit. You are depositing to the card frequently to do what you are doing. That takes time and effort. Why not just pay the bill in full each month, and just track purchases so you move the cash to the account in advance, whether that's physical or on paper? In your case, it's the same as charging one item every few months to keep the card active. If that's what you'd like to do, that's fine. I'd just avoid having the card take up too much of your time and thought. (Disclaimer - I've used and written about Credit Karma. I have no business relationship with them, my articles are to help readers, and not paid placement.) mhoran's response is in line with my thinking. His advice to use the card to build your score is what the zero-credit folk criticize as \"\"a great debt score.\"\" Nonsense. If you use debt wisely, you'll never pay interest (except for a mortgage, perhaps) and you may gain rewards with no cost to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0158d90036d675c31f5634bff5202605",
"text": "Regardless of how it exactly impacts the credit score, the question is does it help improve your credit situation? If the score does go up, but it goes up slowly that was a lot of effort to retard credit score growth. Learning to use a credit card wisely will help you become more financially mature. Start to use the card for a class of purchases: groceries, gas, restaurants. Pick one that won't overwhelm your finances if you lose track of the exact amount you have been charging. You can also use it to pay some utilities or other monthly expenses automatically. As you use the card more often, and you don't overuse it, the credit card company will generally raise your credit limit. This will then help you because that will drop your utilization ratio. Just repeat the process by adding another class of charges to you credit card usage. This expanded use of credit will in the long run help your score. The online systems allow you to see every day what your balance is, thus minimizing surprises.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d924152e21fea9126d8690a43f98daaa",
"text": "\"I always hesitate to provide an answer to \"\"how does this affect my credit score?\"\" questions, because the credit agencies do not publish their formulas and the formulas do change over time. And many others have done more reverse engineering than I to figure out what factors do affect the scores. To some extent, there is no way to know other than to get your credit score and track it over time. (The credit report will tell you what the largest negative factors are.) However, let me make my prediction. You have credit, you aren't using a large percentage of it, and don't have defaults/late payments. So, yes, I think it would help your credit score and would build a history of credit. Since this is so unusual, this is just an educated guess.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "231ac48f7fc11c37f7e3955a4c51fe7f",
"text": "AIUI credit cards report three main things. The potential problem with your strategy is that by pre loading you never actually get a bill and so your provider may not report your payments. Better to wait until the bill comes and then pay it in full. That ensures that your use of the card is properly reported.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1bf43b55a55057cebd95e74979301a9a",
"text": "To get a credit history you need to use credit from someone that reports to the major credit agencies. I don't suppose you have to BUY anything. You could just get a cash loan and hold it for a long time, but it seems silly to pay interest only for the purpose of building credit. The student loan should help you build credit. Also, I'm assuming you buy things all the time like gas, groceries, etc. Why not put those on a credit card and pay the balance off every month? That way you aren't buying anything specifically to get credit. Also there are numerous other benefits: Another suggestion: Set up your cards so the full balance is drafted from your bank automatically on the due date. That will ensure that you always pay on time (helping your credit) and also make you think twice about putting things on the card that you can't afford with the cash you have in the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9ecbd20ba2f2a878ed7134224091f9b",
"text": "\"When using a debit card in a \"\"credit\"\" way, you don't need to enter your PIN, which protects you from skimmers and similar nastiness. Also, assuming it's a Visa or Mastercard debit card, you now have access to all of the fraud protection and other things that you would get with a credit card. The downside for the merchant is that credit card transaction fees are typically higher than debit card transaction fees. I'm less familiar with using a credit card in a \"\"debit\"\" way, so don't have anything to offer on that part of your question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5508414a61fc0d5f77fd9551e59b8de",
"text": "To add to what others have said, INSTALLMENT CREDIT is a stronger factor when building credit. An installment credit is essentially a loan with a fixed repay amount such as a student loan and a car loan. Banks (when it comes to buying your first home) want to see that you are financially able to repay a big debt (car loan). But be careful, if you cannot pay cash, you cannot afford it. My rule of thumb is that when I'm charging something to my CC, I MUST pay it off when it posts to my account. I just became debt free (paid off about 15k in CC and student loan debt in 18 months) and I love it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2786cbf4423fa30dc7a0d1cbed87a1a5",
"text": "If you are in the U.S., without credit cards, you probably don't have a credit history. Without a credit history, you won't be able to get a loan/mortgage, and even if you do, you'll get it on very unfavorable terms. Depending on where you live you might even have great difficulty renting an apartment. So, the most important reason to have credit cards is to have a good credit score. People have already listed other advantages of having credit cards, but another thing that wasn't mentioned is fraud protection. Credit cards are better protected against fraud than debit cards. You probably shouldn't use debit cards online unless you must. Also, without a credit card or credit history, some simple and important liberties like renting a car while you are travelling might be denied to you. So, in conclusion, it's bizarre, but in modern America you need credit cards, and you need them bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12846ee71ec9c5769954964fdc8c2f01",
"text": "\"Patience has never been my strong suit Unfortunately this is what you need to build up credit. The activities that increase your credit score are paying your bills on time and not using too much of the available credit that you do have. The rest (age of accounts, recent pulls, etc.) are short-term indicators that indicate changes in behavior that will make lenders pause and understand what the reasons behind the events are. Also keep in mind that your credit score shouldn't run your life. It should be a passive indicator of your financial habits - not something that you actively manipulate. Is there anything I can do to raise my score without having to take out a loan with interest? Pay your bills on time, and don't take out more credit than you need. You're already in the \"\"excellent\"\" category, so there's no reason to panic or try to manipulate it. Even if you temporarily dip below, if you need to make a big purchase (house), your loan-to-value and debt/income ratio will be much bigger factors in what interest rate you can get. As far as the BofA card goes, if you don't need it, cancel it. It might cause a temporary dip in your credit, but it will go away quickly, and you're better off not having credit cards that you don't need.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98deac234312b8b39ece2d300ed8d336",
"text": "I don't use debit cards, but if I did I would review that portion of the statement. I look at my credit card statements pretty closely, and probably catch one or two mistakes or things I want to question every year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5964e038b78de817efa3fe3d15bc7e0b",
"text": "You can use the debit card for practically any purchase that you make. You'll have to take the usual precautions and then a few additional ones. Cards make your life really easy and convenient with some basic precautions. All the best for your travel and stay in the USA. My two cents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01264d3bf1b37ab9fb671b8d57b01293",
"text": "I've read multiple times that the way to rebuild the credit score is to get a credit card and then have some minor charges on it every month and have them paid in full every month. Old negative events age and this disciplined activity rebuild the score to some not to horrible levels. Now it's true that it's hard to get reasonably good credit cards when your credit score is poor. Yet it's not necessary to have a good credit card for this case - such things as large credit limit are not needed. All that's needed is a long grace period so that there's no interest between the moment a charge is done and a moment the bill is paid in full at the end of the month. Yes, the card may have rather high interest and rather low credit limit, but it doesn't really matter. I've read once on MSN Money that people are offered credit even while they're in the middle of bankruptcy, so it's not impossible to get a credit card in the described situation. Goes without saying that a lot of discipline will be needed to have all this implemented.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c944fefdbc93e50f6dc709bd42f3708",
"text": "What type of credit card should I be looking in to to build credit from scratch? I have a stable job and will be able to pay back debts right away I just don't want to get into something and then regret it in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d74a74d5aeabef3044cf1f4454d7077d",
"text": "Need is a strong word. As far as merchants are concerned, if they accept, e.g., Visa credit, they will accept Visa Debit. The reverse is not necessarily true. Up until lately, Aldi would only accept debit cards (credit cards have higher merchant fees), and when I used to got to Sam's Club, they would accept Visa debit, but not credit (they had/have an exclusive deal with Discover for credit). So, yes, they can tell from the card number whether it's credit or debit. However, I've never heard of a case of the situation being biased against debit.* That said there are some advantages to having a credit card: ETA: I don't know how credit history works in the EU, but in the US having open credit accounts definitely does affect your credit score which directly affects what rate you can get for a mortgage. *ETA_2: As mentioned in the comments and another answer, car rentals will often require credit cards and not debit (Makes sense to me that they would want to make sure they can get their money if there is damage to the car). Many credit cards do include rental car insurance if you use it to pay for your rental, so that's another potential advantage for credit cards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c392eba0ad6ab801cc2013507daae51a",
"text": "The question should be - do you need a debit card? Other than American Express I have to tell my other credit card issuers to not make my cards dual debit/credit. Using a debit card card can be summed up easily - It creates a risk of fraud, errors, theft, over draft, and more while providing absolutely no benefit. It was simply a marketing scheme for card companies to reduce risk that has lost favor, although they are still used. That is why banks put it on credit cards by default if they can. (I am talking about logical people who can control not overspending because of debit vs. credit - as it is completely illogical that you would spend more based on what kind of card you have.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf5e9fa941ac38c0cf3dae70a40d1c44",
"text": "\"The trick to using a credit card responsibly is accounting. With your old system, you were paying for everything out of your savings account. Everytime you had an expense, it was immediately withdrawn from your savings account, and you saw how much money you had left. Now, with a credit card, there isn't any money being withdrawn from your savings account until a month later, when you have a huge credit card bill. The trick is to treat every credit card transaction as if it was a debit card transaction, and subtract the money from your \"\"available funds\"\" on paper immediately. Then you'll know how much money you actually have to spend (not by looking at your bank statement, but by looking at your \"\"available funds\"\" number), and when the credit card bill comes, you'll have money sitting there waiting to go to the credit card company. This requires more work than you had with your old system, and if it sounds like too much work, you might be better off with a debit card or cash. But if you want to continue to use the credit card, you'll find that the right software will make the accounting process easier. I like YNAB, but there are other software products that work as well. Just make sure that your system accounts for each credit card transaction as it is spent, deducting the amount from your budget now, so that there is money set aside for the credit card bill. Software that simply categorizes your spending after the fact is not as useful.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "102c30a822fd503925f07060b6aca3c4",
"text": "The post that you linked to saying that a pre-paid credit card is really a debit card is kind of right and kind of wrong. From your point of view, to get a $1000 pre-paid credit card, you need to hand over $1000. So nobody is giving any credit to you. You can only spend money that you actually own, like a debit card. For the merchant accepting your card, it is exactly like a credit card. He doesn't know what deals you had to make to get the card. The merchant just knows that up to some amount, he will receive money. So in that sense it is a credit card and will be accepted like a credit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22f5aec3e608838bdd46b9d393d4ee05",
"text": "No, it won't affect your score until your statement is posted. Paying your bill before your statement is posted is actually a good way to keep your credit utilization low. If you're worried about high credit utilization negatively affecting your credit score, consider paying your bill several times a month to ensure that when your final monthly statement is posted, your utilization is still low. When my credit limit was very low while I was in college, I did this almost every month, and I've seen other sites recommend this practice as well. From creditkarma.com: The easiest way [to lower credit utilization] is to make credit card payments more than once a month so that your balance never gets too high. and creditcards.com: Consider making payments to creditors more than once each month. Otherwise, if you put a major expense -- like a new appliance -- on a credit card, even if you plan to pay it off, your FICO score may take a hit. The reason is that credit scores are calculated as a snapshot in time, so if that happens to be right after you charged a new $700 washing machine, your utilization ratio will look worryingly high. Remember, though, that it's best to have some balance on your card when your statement is posted (assuming you pay it off in full each month), because as the chart shows, 0% utilization is about as bad as utilization > 31-40%: Also, remember that credit utilization affects your credit score in real time, so if you have high utilization one month but a lower utilization the next month, the hit to your score will disappear once a statement with low utilization is posted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaec795b778da2ed3ae3b5fdaa5b15be",
"text": "Depends on your credit score. If you came from foreign country, you might not be having enough Credit Score. In that case, you have to go for Prepaid Credit Card offered by Banks. For prepaid credit card,you have to deposit certain amount of money which will act as your credit line.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6f8a67119373bd2e7715858b1be9c249
|
Implications of receiving small amounts of money on the side
|
[
{
"docid": "85ff947d923a0fb0c528b80bbdf65584",
"text": "HMRC may or may not find out about it; the risks and penalties involved if they do find out make it unwise not to just declare it and pay the tax on it. Based on the fact you asked the question, I am assuming that you currently pay all your tax through PAYE and don't do a tax return. You would need to register for Self Assessment and complete a return; this is not at all difficult if your tax situation is straightforward, which it sounds like yours is. Then you would owe the tax on the additional money, at whatever applicable rate (which depends on how much you earn in your main job, the rate tables are here: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances ). If it truly is a one off you could simply declare it on your return as other income, but if it is more than that then you would need to look at setting up as Self Employed - there is some good advice on the differences here: http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/tax-self-employment-still-employed/ : Broadly, you are likely to be running a business if you have a regular, organised activity with a profit motive, which continues for at least a few months. If the work is one-off, or very occasional (say, a few times per year), or not very organised, or of very low value (say, under £2,000 per year), then it might qualify as casual income. If you think it is beyond the definition of casual income then you would also need to pay National Insurance, as described in the previous link, but otherwise the tax treatment would be the same.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "22ce9d27bceb925253dd69b181e4470f",
"text": "Q: If I call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have? A: 4. You can call it whatever you want, it's still a tail. The scenario is nonsense. There is a quid pro quo, the waitress served the customer and he tipped her. A $7 tip on a $24.47 check. He was generous, but misguided if he thought that this note would let the tip go untaxed. And even though the article you link is fresh, the author has the gift threshold incorrect. This year it's $14,000, and has been so since 2013. A cute story, and unlikely to be an issue for $7, but the IRS would take notice if this idea gained any traction. Two references - If Gifts Are Not Income, Why Tax Gratuities? From the Tax Court Files: Is That Money a Gift or Income?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f787372f8004256b7f7385e0f510adb",
"text": "Thank you for the quick reply. My main firm pretty much sets us up as individual practices with limited support as far as customer service. The clients are ours to take care of. There is not a formal small account policy I am aware of, though I will confirm this next week. I am considering delegating a current assistant, who is training to be a rep, to take care of these clients under my close supervision. It might be good experience for him and a way I can still profit. I wouldn't want to lose these clients because a) they might mature or bring referrals, and b) there are individuals in need of at least some insurance to protect their families.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9021ee044ffe953dad127d98ff65fa9e",
"text": "\"I don't think it would be counted as income, and if it's a short-term loan it doesn't really matter as the notional interest on the loan would be negligible. But you can avoid any possible complications by just having two accounts in the name of the person trying to get the account benefits, particularly if you're willing to just provide the \"\"seed\"\" money to get the loop started.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3b31f6ff09ba86956fe3909c37414b4",
"text": "\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebc14ad313aef5d1be707450e2f0f264",
"text": "I'm not sure this is a safe assumption, necessarily. If the take is sufficient to permanently satiate whatever monetary need motivated the initial crime, risk in the ratio will remain the same but reward will be significantly altered. Having little wealth and gaining a great deal of wealth is different from having a great deal of wealth and getting even more wealth. As the risk/reward ratio would change, the decision-making process would not be the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41738846c29b227d7c9af116f730c97e",
"text": "Ok so Arbitrage? I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards. Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal. Is there a financial term that fits this better?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "518804c68cb84104740402d5c0394688",
"text": "\"No, but it's serving the same purpose, which is to hide the original origin of a sum of money. Both examples involve moving money from one source to another, when both the source and the sink are in actuality the same entity managed and run by the same people. Both involve doing it in order to hide the money from those who would otherwise have a right to a portion of it. In this case, it is those with a right on the \"\"net\"\". In Starbucks UK, it's the UK government.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d1a7f1944348ed00e9367a5fcb54ad7",
"text": "\"Well, I'd probably need to buy a lot more [Tide](http://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1) to hide any purchases I don't want Uncle Sam to know about (not just drugs, either - When's the last time you paid sales tax at a yard sale?). Other than that, I doubt it would matter much. 99.9% of my financial transactions are *already* on plastic, and I regularly keep the same \"\"emergency $20 bill\"\" in my wallet for months at a time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cb42ac0682df55bbe64cdcfaa95892b",
"text": "CTRs are made all the time, and yes, the banks do need to consider one-off transactions that aren't $10,000 per se but amount effectively to $10,000 or more. But if you're doing nothing improper, just pay your bill and be done with it. No need to split it up just for this reason.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bff4b865a1719e435d5065a66da76fe1",
"text": "It means someone's getting paid too much. I'd check the sharpe ratio and compare that to similar funds along with their expense ratio. So in some scenarios it's not necessarily a bad thing but being informed is the important thing",
"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": "fd85b373ebfb5d77342806f310579e72",
"text": "Your math is fine, except employers might not permit the withdrawal. You'd have to go back to their rules or contact HR to understand the withdrawals permitted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee473ed573e363dc31cbc27f420ce4a4",
"text": "\"I think what those articles are saying is: \"\"If you want to leave some money to charity and some to relatives, don't bequeath a Roth to charity while bequeathing taxable accounts to relatives.\"\" In other words, it's not \"\"bad\"\" to leave a Roth IRA to charity, it's just not as good as giving it to humans, if there are humans you want to give money to. In your situation, the total amount you want to leave to relatives is less than the value of your Roth. So it sounds like the advice as it applies to you is: \"\"Don't leave your relatives $30K from your taxable funds while leaving the whole Roth to charity. Instead, leave $30K of your Roth to your relatives, while leaving all the taxable funds to charity (along with the leftover $20K of the Roth).\"\" In other words, the Roth is a \"\"last resort\"\" for charitable giving --- only give away Roth money to charity if you already gave humans all the money you want to give them. (I'm unsure of the details of how you would actually designate portions of the Roth for different beneficiaries, but some googling suggests it is possible.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e3309d191d613404bd65a9a8a47dd1f",
"text": "If you are looking at long-term investments then you can look to Dheer's answer and see that it doesn't matter whether the money is large or small, the return will be the same. When it comes to shorter-term investments, it can actually pay to be a smaller investor. Consider a stock that may not be trading in high volume. If I want to take a position for 2,000 shares, I can probably buy it quite quickly without moving the market considerably. If I was managing your hypothetical portfolio opening a position for 1,000,000 shares, it can cause the price to go up significantly because I have to execute the order very carefully in order to not tip my hand to the market that I want a million shares. Algorithmic traders will see the volume increasing on those shares and will raise their asking price. High speed traders and market makers will also cause a lot of purchasing overhead. Then later when it comes time to sell, I will lose a percentage to the price drop as I start flooding the market with available shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea4c0ee7329add71086fa7685ed6091c",
"text": "It will not be a problem; people regularly move larger sums. It will be reported to law authorities as large enough to be potentially of interest, but since you can explain it that's fine.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f03058f6674a29661c3d0c6a85415634
|
Personal loan to a friend procedure
|
[
{
"docid": "18f63457e8334538d77a5766629da7ed",
"text": "If this isn't a case where you would be willing to forgive the debt if they can't pay, it's a business transaction, not a friend transaction. Establish exactly what the interest rate will be, what the term of the loan is, whether periodic payments are required, how much is covered by those payments vs. being due at the end of the term as a balloon payment, whether they can make additional payments to reduce the principal early... Get it all in writing and signed by all concerned before any money changes hands. Consider having a lawyer review the language before signing. If the loan is large enough that it might incur gift taxes, then you may want to go the extra distance to make it a real, properly documented, intra-family loan. To do this you must charge (of at least pay taxes on) at least a certain minimal interest rate, and they have to make regular payments (or you can gift them the payments but you still won't up paying tax on the interest income). In this case you definitely want a lawyer to draw up the papers, I think. There are services on the web Antioch specialize in helping to set this up properly, and which offer services such as bookkeeping and monthly billing (aT extra cost) to make it less hassle for the lender. If the loan will be structured as a mortgage on the borrower's house -- making the interest deductible for the borrower in the US -- there are additional forms that need to be filled. The services can help with that too, for appropriate fees. Again, this probably wants experts writing the agreement, to make sure it's properly written for where you and the borrower live. Caveat: all the above is assuming USA. Rules may be very different elsewhere. I've done a formal intractability mortgage -- mostly to avoid gift tax -- and it wasn't too awful a hassle. Your mileage will vary.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7972dd39bc25c4136e567baa0e8857d9",
"text": "The one thing your friend needs to understand is for every dollar paid out, there is somebody paying that dollar in. The mark of a Ponzi scheme is that it feeds on itself. The stock market has trade volumes where it almost meets the definition of a Ponzi scheme. However, it deals with shares in actual production facilities (rather than only financial institutions) and provides means of production in return for large amounts of the profits. So there is someone legitimately expecting to pay back more than he gets out, in return for the availability of money at a time where he could not finance matters except by credit. With your friend's scheme, there is nobody expected to pay more than he gets out. Nail him down with that: every dollar paid out has to be paid in. Who is the one paying? At this point of time, it sounds like there will be two possible outcomes. You'll be visiting your friend in debtors' prison, or you'll visit him in criminal prison. If you highly value your friendship, you might get him out of the former with your own money. You won't be able with the latter. And if you let him exploit his standing for scamming his community, make no mistake, it will be the latter. I don't envy you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e27a09e389aeb2e4de4857f4d59096e7",
"text": "Banks will usually look at 2 years worth of tax returns for issuing business credit. If those aren't available (for instance, for recently formed businesses), they will look at the personal returns of the owners. Unfortunately, it sounds like your friend is in the latter category. Bringing in another partner isn't necessarily going to help, either; with only two partners / owners, the bank would probably look at both owners' personal tax returns and credit histories. It may be necessary to offer collateral. I'm sorry I can't offer any better solutions, but alternative funding such as personal loans from family & friends could be necessary. Perhaps making them partners in exchange for capital.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8125e139939bdcfbcaeb83f843bb2452",
"text": "employed under the table and doesn't have a bank account If I could make that size 10,000,000 font I would. Your friend likely also isn't paying taxes. The student loan penalties will be nothing compared to what the IRS does to you. Avoid taking financial advice from that person.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5c208aa15db85fd959b6995ab8b9298",
"text": "In short getting funds converted outside of the Banking channel is illegal in India as Foreign Exchange is still regulated. If you show only a credit from your friend's NRE account to your NRO account [note it can't be your NRE account], it would be treated as GIFT and taxed accordingly, else you would have to show it as loan and pay back. You may show the payback in USD. But then there is a limit of Fx every individual can get converted/repatriate out of India and there is a purpose of remittance, all these complicate this further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4414e027b470e0bbfd52df49d5900c61",
"text": "I would advise against this, answering only the first part of question #1. Borrowing and lending money among friends and family members can often ruin relationships. While it can sometimes be done successfully, this is most likely not the case. All parties involved have to approach this uniquely in order for it to work. This would include your son's future significant other. Obviously you have done very well financially, congratulations. Your view for your son might be for him to pay you off ASAP: Even after becoming a doctor, continue to live like a student until the loan is paid off. His view might be more conventional; get the car and house and pay off my loans before I am 50. He may start with your view, but two years in he marries a woman that pressures him to be more conventional. My advice would be to give if you can afford to, but if not, do not lend. If you decide to lend then come up with a very clear agreement on the repayment schedule and consequences of non-payment. You may want to see a lawyer. For the rest of it, interest payments received are taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e36c25e1dba1eb52f81421c5381ad65",
"text": "File a small claims lawsuit in the city that the person resides. The court will charge you a small fee and give you a date. They will also summons the other person to appear. Bring all the documentation that shows the following BONUS - Bring the documentation that shows them saying they will not pay you back I had to sue someone once for a very similar problem. I lent them a 6 month interest free loan. They told me to shove it after 6 months and 1 day. So I sued them. The court should accept facebook messages as proof. More than likely though your friend wont even show up which means you win by default. Here's the bad news, that was the easy part. Just because you win in court doesn't mean the money appears the next day. There are a couple ways you may have to recover your money. Best of luck to you!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "661a4eac7c078a020740d3c5e30bed82",
"text": "\"Just to go against the grain here. Sometimes, loaning money to friends is the right thing to do. For example, they had a loved one die, and need the money to cover funeral expenses until the life insurance pays out. Here, you may consider it your ethical duty to loan the money (or you may not). It does not make sense from a financial point of view (you are unlikely to charge interest and you are taking all the risk), but sometimes you put your financial prudence aside because \"\"being a good person and a great friend\"\" is more important. It is true that the general rule should be not to loan money to friends, and particularly never loan money you cannot afford to lose. But there are exceptions to every rule. I'll note that you may be best off with a plain-english, non-lawyery contract. Make it absolutely as simple as possible. As others have pointed out, specify a repayment date or schedule. Note what happens if they miss the deadline. Specify interest, if appropriate. Get it signed by you and the other person. And make sure you consider what happens if your friend doesn't honour the agreement. For that kind of money, it is also worth considering collateral.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fd25adfcca35635da856d9e3f8236de",
"text": "\"I can't vouch for Australian law, but in the US there is actually a recognized mechanism for \"\"in-family loans\"\" which ensures that it's all fully documented for tax purposes, including filing it as an official second mortgage. (Just did that recently in my own family, which is why I'm aware of it.) We're required to charge at least some interest (there's a minimum set, currently around 0.3%), and the interest is taxable income, and it is wise to get a lawyer to draw up the paperwork (there are a few services which specialize in this, charging a flat fee of about US$700 if the loan is standard enough that they can handle it as fill-in-the-blank), but outside of that it's pretty painless. This can also be used as a way of shifting gift limits from year to year -- if you issue a loan, and then gift the recipient with the payments each year (including the payments), you've effectively spread the immediate transfer of money over multiple years of taxes. Of course it does cost you the legal paperwork and the tax in the interest (which they're still \"\"paying\"\" out of your gift), but it can be a useful tool, and it's one that wasn't well known until recently. Again: This is all US codes, posted only for comparison (and for the benefit of US readers). It may be completely irrelevant. But it may be worth investigating whether Oz has something similar.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6dbd951582b3e30962e024dba0282d1",
"text": "\"The answer to your question is...it depends. Depending on the state you, your friend, and the LLC are located in, it can be very easy to run afoul of state banking laws, or to somehow violate some other statute pertaining to the legal activities an LLC may undertake by doing something like a loan. It is not unusual (or illegal) for officers or employees of a business entity to be loaned money by the company they work for, so something of this nature wouldn't be an issue with regulatory agencies. Having your LLC loan money to a friend who isn't an employee or officer of your LLC just might not be kosher though. The best advice I can give is that you should call the state banking commission or similar agency in your state and ask them whether what you want to do is alright. The LAST thing you want is to end up with auditors or regulators sniffing around your business, even if you haven't done anything wrong, and you certainly don't want to run the risk of accidentally \"\"piercing the corporate veil\"\", as someone else here astutely pointed out. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "231c8283c9656c1c1a24480712f7b79b",
"text": "The standard approach is to reach an agreement and put it in writing. What you agree upon is up to you, but in the US if you want to avoid gift taxes larger loans need to be properly documented and must charge at least a certain minimal interest rate. (Or at least you must declare and be taxed upon that minimal income even if you don't actually charge it. Last I looked, the federal requirement was somewhere under 0.3%, so this isn't usually an issue. There may also be state rules.) When doing business with friends, treat it as business first, friendship second. Otherwise you risk losing both money and friendship. Regarding what rate to charge: That is something you two have to negotiate, based on how much the borrower needs the money, how much lending the money puts the lender at risk, how generous each is feeling, etc. Sorry, but there is no one-size-fits-all answer here. What I charge (or insist on paying to) my brother might be different from what I charge my cousin, or a co-worker, or best friend, or... If both parties think it's fair, it's fair. If you can't reach an agreement, of course, the loan doesn't happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ea12d08b27c305c365845315d008efb",
"text": "This is called a fraudulent conveyance because its purpose is to prevent a creditor from getting repaid. It is subject to claw back under US law, which is a fancy way of saying that your friend will have to pay the bank back. Most jurisdictions have similar laws. It is probably a crime as well, but that varies by jurisdiction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0ba3a3f52735f9f8f5be47d45351fa7",
"text": "\"If you wish to lend them the money, make the check payable to the order of \"\"loan\"\", not directly to your son or daughter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aabd62574e0e4c620672a13de2a796d",
"text": "Its participating preferred with a 1x liquidation preference. Very unfriendly for the company owner. Most startups these days are seeded with convertible notes because there's less thinking about the valuation of the company; that question is booted to the series A. its also easier to draw up the legal docs; pretty much a standard loan agreement. Finally, it can be far friendlier for the owner depending on if the note is an uncapped note. This is expensive financing and your friend can definitely find cheaper money if he looks for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38b1c484d23f6bd6605e7aa55bb6899f",
"text": "Interest payments You can make loans to people and collect interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d1cac00c18cae042e4afd946a53db0",
"text": "You should only loan money to friends or relatives if you are fully accepting the possibility of never ever getting that money back. And in this situation it can happen that you will be forced to give him a very large loan if something bad ever happens to him. (Paying the monthly rates instead of him and expecting he will someday pay it back to you is technically the same as loaning him money). Something might happen in the future which will result in him not paying his monthly payments. Maybe not now, but in 5 years. Or 10. The economy might change, he might be out of a job, his personal values might change. A house mortgage is long term, and during that time a lot can happen.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
38f68f670f10ecfc324ae2e7568f7748
|
Do I need to write the date on the back of a received check when depositing it?
|
[
{
"docid": "3b492f20ffd670ec5f37f67561c177c5",
"text": "\"You do not need to write anything on the second line. There are a variety of helpful things that you can add, e.g.: For Deposit Only. This tells the bank to deposit the check into your account and ignore other signatures. Your account number. Especially useful when added to \"\"For Deposit Only\"\". A countersignature. This tells the bank to pay the check to someone other than you. Countersigned checks used to be much more common than they are now. Someone who didn't have a bank account might ask someone who did to cash a check for them. See also: Four ways to endorse a check which gives the correct format for endorsing a check in these ways.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2be0465c8f47c298571bd3e30b433808",
"text": "\"Changed to answer match the edited version of the question No, you do not need to write the date of your endorsement, but you can choose to do so if you want to. The bank stamp on the back will likely have the date and perhaps even the exact time when the check was deposited. The two lines are there in case you want to write something like \"\"For deposit only to Acct# uvwxyz\"\" above your signature (always a good idea if you are making the deposit by sending the paper check (with or without a deposit slip) by US mail or any other method that doesn't involve you handing the check to a bank teller). If you are wanting to get encash the check, that is, get cash in return for handing the check over to the bank instead of depositing the check in your account, then the rules are quite a bit different.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd37e41c50ea2a8d652fddf4c8deb8b2",
"text": "\"Let me just add that while you don't need to write the date received on the back of the check, you could. Why? Let's say someone was late in paying you and you wanted to document the fact that they were late. I've had late-paying customers send me a check dated on the due date but really they just pre-dated the check and sent it 60 days past-due. So let's say I want to establish and document the pattern in case it becomes a future legal issue. When you deposit or cash a check, an image of the front and back is made and the person or company who issued the check will have those images stored as part of their transaction history. (It used to be that the original, physical, cancelled check was returned to the payer, but that was another era.) So write the date received on the back next to the endorsement, endorse the check, and take a photo of the front and back (along with the postmark on the envelope) to document that they are a late payer. This way, if it ever becomes a \"\"he said she said\"\" issue you can easily show they have a history of paying late. If the payer looks at their check images they'll see your received date note next to the endorsement. Granted, this is a lot of trouble for a unique situation. In 20+ years of running a business I've actually had the foresight to do this a handful of times with habitual offenders, and in (only) one case did it come in handy later on. But boy was I glad to have those photos when I needed them.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "41942b71a95f019b68ead8e85ef4acdc",
"text": "Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it. It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank. In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID. You don't even technically have to be there. Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5bd30df315f45d3433c7b6140119124",
"text": "\"I'm no accounting expert, but I've never heard of anyone using a separate account to track outstanding checks. Instead, the software I use (GnuCash) uses a \"\"reconciled\"\" flag on each transaction. This has 3 states: n: new transaction (the bank doesn't know about it yet), c: cleared transaction (the bank deducted the money), and y: reconciled transaction (the transaction has appeared on a bank statement). The account status line includes a Cleared balance (which should be how much is in your bank account right now), a Reconciled balance (which is how much your last bank statement said you had), and a Present balance (which is how much you'll have after your outstanding checks clear). I believe most accounting packages have a similar feature.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fd0d70975a9e25e6f4df9b653ffceee",
"text": "\"I cannot answer the original question, but since there is a good deal of discussion about whether it's credible at all, here's an answer that I got from Bank of America. Note the fine difference between \"\"your account\"\" and \"\"our account\"\", which does not seem to be a typo: The payment method is determined automatically by our system. One of the main factors is the method by which pay to recipients prefer to receive payments. If a payment can be issued electronically, we attempt to do so because it is the most efficient method. Payment methods include: *Electronic: Payment is sent electronically prior to the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Corporate Check: This is a check drawn on our account and is mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds to cover the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Laser Draft Check: This is a check drawn on your account and mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account when the pay to recipient cashes the check, just as if you wrote the check yourself. To determine how your payment was sent, click the \"\"Payments\"\" button in your Bill Pay service. Select the \"\"view payment\"\" link next to the payment. Payment information is then displayed. \"\"Transmitted electronically\"\" means the payment was sent electronically. \"\"Payment transaction number\"\" means the payment was sent via a check drawn from our account. \"\"Check number\"\" means the payment was sent as a laser draft check. Each payment request is evaluated individually and may change each time a payment processes. A payment may switch from one payment method to another for a number of reasons. The merchant may have temporarily switched the payment method to paper, while they update processing information. Recent changes or re-issuance of your payee account number could alter the payment method. In my case, the web site reads a little different: Payment check # 12345678 (8 digits) was sent to Company on 10/27/2015 and delivered on 10/30/2015. Funds were withdrawn from your (named) account on 10/30/2015. for one due on 10/30/2015; this must be the \"\"corporate check\"\". And for another, earlier one, due on 10/01/2015, this must be the laser draft check: Check # 1234 (4 digits) from your (named) account was mailed to Company on 09/28/2015. Funds for this payment are withdrawn from your account when the Pay To account cashes the check. Both payments were made based on the same recurring bill pay payment that I set up manually (knowing little more of the company than its address).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b08d9cfb180251cd9d2a024e09a96934",
"text": "If it doesn't seem that important, why bother blacking the name out? For the effort, it might cost you less in your time to have the checks reprinted. There's no way to know what all banks would do with a check that has a name crossed out, but most would ignore it. Most checks are processed automatically. Signatures are not verified, post-dated checks can usually still be deposited. Occasionally you'll have a bank or merchant reject a check, but don't expect that to be the norm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfd3eb0b7e5e8a780a7c355f643759a2",
"text": "\"Legally, a check just needs to have a certain list of things (be an instruction to one's bank to pay a specific amount of money to bearer or to a specific entity, have a date, have a signature, etc.) There are anecdotes around of a guy depositing a junk mail check and it accidentally qualifying as a real check (which he turned into a live show), or of writing a check on a door, cow, or \"\"the shirt off your back\"\". What kind of checks your bank will process is technically up to them. Generally, if you get your blank checks printed up by any reputable firm, they'll have similar information in similar places, as well as the MICR line (the account and routing number in magnetic ink on the bottom) to allow for bank to process the checks with automated equipment. As long as it's a standard size, has the MICR line, and has the information that a check needs, your bank is likely to be fine with it. So, there are some standards, but details like where exactly the name of the bank is, or what font is used, or the like, are up to whoever is printing the check. For details on what standards your bank requires in order to process your checks, you'd have to check with your bank directly. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if they just directed you to their preferred check printer provider, as they know that they accept their check format fine. Though as I said, any reputable check printer makes sure that they meet the standards to get processed by banks without trouble. Unless you're a business that's going to be writing a lot of checks and pay a lot of fees for the privilege, a bank is not likely to want to make exceptions for you for your own custom-printed octagonal checks written in ancient Vulcan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c3423be0fdb44cbd018bfe813fda469",
"text": "ACH transfers are reversible and traceable. So what's stopping them is the ease and the speed with which they would be caught. When you give a check - you have to provide some information to the payee so that they could cash it. You can't withhold the bank or the account number - how would they charge you? So it has to be on it, and if it is on it - it can be put on any other (fake) check. That is why checks come also with your signature, and are always available for you to inspect when they're cashed. If you notice something out of the ordinary (check you didn't give? ACH transfer you didn't authorize?) on your statement - it is your responsibility to notify the bank within X period of time (60 days, I think) of the statement, and it will be dealt with. So the best way to protect yourself would be to keep an eye on your account and verify that the transactions that you see are all authorized, and do it frequently. Keeping large amounts of cash on your checking account is never a good idea, regardless. Also, since checks are inherently unsafe - try to only give checks to people you trust, and use bill-pay or credit cards with anyone else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a604457a8b2691dc2a260e9b318da026",
"text": "\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05f2384f318fceeaea2560c1da8ccd3d",
"text": "\"If the answer were \"\"no,\"\" you still found the 'black swan' type exception that proves the answer to be \"\"yes,\"\" right? My experience is this - again just my experience, my bank - When by balance goes below $10, I have the account trigger an email. I wrote a check I forgot to register and subtract, so the email was sent and the account balance in fact showed negative. I transferred to cover the check and the next day, there was a history that didn't go negative, the evening deposit was credited prior to check clearing. I set up my bills on line. I set a transfer in advance for the same dollar amount as a bill that was due, e.g. $1000 transfer for a $1000 bill. I woke up to an email, and the account showed the bill was paid prior to the transfer. So one line showed going -$900, and the next line +$100 after transfer. Even though it's the same online process. Again, the next day the history re-ordered to look like I was never negative. But even on a day I know I'm having payments issued, I can never just ignore that email. The first time this happened, I asked the bank, and they said if the negative went until the next day, I'd get an overdraft/short balance notice. This is a situation to ask your bank how they handle this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79cf9bb9c76a12e5bb6ccf3b1186e6be",
"text": "\"Firstly, it isn't so generous. It is a win-win, but the bank doesn't have to mail me a free box of checks with my new account, or offer free printing to compete for my business. They already have the infrastructure to send out checks, so the actual cost for my bank to mail a check on my behalf is pretty minimal. It might even save them some cost and reduce exposure. All the better if they don't actually mail a check at all. Per my bank Individuals and most companies you pay using Send Money will be mailed a paper check. Your check is guaranteed to arrive by the delivery date you choose when you create the payment. ... A select number of companies–very large corporations such as telecoms, utilities, and cable companies–are part of our electronic biller network and will be paid electronically. These payments arrive within two business days... So the answer to your question depend on what kind of bill pay you used. If it was an electronic payment, there isn't a realistic possibility the money isn't cashed. If your bank did mail a paper check, the same rules would apply as if you did it yourself. (I suppose it would be up to the bank. When I checked with my bank's support this was their answer.) Therefore per this answer: Do personal checks expire? [US] It is really up to your bank whether or not they allow the check to be cashed at a later date. If you feel the check isn't cashed quickly enough, you would have to stop payment and contact whoever you were trying to pay and perhaps start again. (Or ask them to hustle and cash the check before you stop it.) Finally, I would bet a dime that your bank doesn't \"\"pre-fund\"\" your checks. They are just putting a hold on the equivalent money in your account so you don't overdraw. That is the real favor they do for you. If you stopped the check, your money would be unfrozen and available. EDIT Please read the comment about me losing a dime; seems credible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c8011576a486a39fc265ddc0e755997",
"text": "I tried to find that out once, and learned 'theoretically never'. The reason is that the guy who gave you the check (name him guy-1) might have deposited a check from guy-2 a day before, and without that money, his check will bounce. Now guy-2 might have deposited a check from guy-3 a day before, and without that money, his check will bounce. Repeat for a while, and then bounce the check from guy-99, and it takes the banks months to unravel it. Yes, improbable. But. A friend working in a bank explained me that, he had seen chains of three and four unravel, which took 20+ days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8632e74a64993d3efaae90929599b200",
"text": "\"In absence of complete information, I can only speculate that your phrases We both endorsed the cheque, and especially since the name on the cheque doesn't seem to be the name of the person I spoke with. mean that the check was payable to Jane Doe but was endorsed by someone you know as Wade Roe using language such as \"\"Pay to the order of user6344\"\" and then you endorsed it as something like \"\"For deposit only to Acct# 1234567890\"\" and gave it to the bank teller with a deposit slip for Acct# 1234567890. Presumably Wade Roe did not accompany you to the bank and the bank teller did not notice that the check was not endorsed to you by Jane Doe, or she did go with you to the bank but the teller did not check her ID when she endorsed the check. In any case, you, as a customer of the bank, are definitely on the hook in the sense that you in effect guaranteed the validity of Wade Roe's endorsement of the check payable to Jane Doe. You presented the check to the bank as a legitimate check that you were legitimately entitled to deposit in your account. In effect, if fraud was committed, you committed the fraud by depositing a bum check. As all the other answers have said, you need to go down to the bank and talk to a bank officer, preferably the manager, right away. Don't go to a teller (even though in many banks, the tellers have job titles like assistant vice-president.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b621ce2d0edac5bc21245dfd860b2257",
"text": "It probably doesn't matter since your credit and your checking are at the same institution, but I don't like to let my credit auto draft my checking. I always do it the other way around (and keep them at different places) I feel like there is more control when my money is gone that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06d8ab67711673601cf3eaaf45b9519a",
"text": "\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \"\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\"\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab4e544caa7e8c7379f2f5832b9df854",
"text": "\"Based on past case law, a check made payable to qualified charity and delivered (e.g., placed in the mail on 12/31 would count as delivered as it is out of the hands of the donor) would fall under the \"\"constructive receipt doctrine\"\". However, for non-charitable gifts (e.g., gifts to family members) it is the date the check is cashed (honored by the receiving bank). This is important as the annual gift exclusion is just that \"\"Annual\"\". Therefore, if I gift my child $14,000 by writing a check on 12/31/2014 but they deposit it on 1/3/2015 then I have used my annual gift exclusion for 2015 and not 2014. This means I could not gift them anything further in 2015. BTW the annual gift amount is for ALL gifts cash and non-cash. Most people don't seem to realize this. If I give $14,000 of cash to my child and then also give them Christmas gifts with a value of $1,000 I have exceeded my annual gift exclusion to that child. Usually there are ways around this issue as I can give $14,000 to each and every person I want and if married my spouse can do the same. This allows us to give $14,000 from each of us to each child plus $14,000 from each of us to their spouse if married and $14,000 from each of us to each of their children if they have any.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffa2250acc63d88f31a6961a58f380b9",
"text": "I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bef6e29e97f5a4964d66ffde0ba5c14e
|
What are the pitfalls of loaning money to friends or family? Is there a right way to do it?
|
[
{
"docid": "2324f4a3c1108e6b79337b075503b0e5",
"text": "There are two levels to consider here: That said, before loaning/giving anyone money ask yourself if it is good for them. If they have problems managing their money, or holding down a job, and you give them money, they are just going to come back for more later. In this type of situation, you shouldn't give/loan them money. But on the other hand, if a friend or family member has hit a rough patch and you know they are the kind of person that will be on their feet again soon, and you have nothing to lose, give them the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab8e356652d6730d50ad291d5fb51e4c",
"text": "The big problem with lending money to friends and family is that if things go sour with the deal than you can lose something a lot more valuable than the money associated with the deal. As a result of that I no longer lend money to friends and family. If I have the extra money available and I know someone is really in need I'll give them the money no strings attached before I'll lend any. If they decide to give back the amount given at some point in the future so be it, but there will be no expectations. Thanksgiving dinner just has a different taste to it when someone at the table owes someone else money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "147d3f1cc3989a3f208c573d1303da36",
"text": "I recently lent some money to my sister. While I generally agree with Phillip that lending to family and friends should be avoided, I felt I needed to make an exception. She really needed the cash, and my husband and I agreed that we would be ok without it. Here are some guidelines I used that may be helpful to others: In the end, I think lending to family and friends should be avoided, and certainly should not be done lightly, but by communicating clearly and directly, and keeping careful records, I think you can help someone out and still avoid the lingering awkwardness at future Thanksgivings when one person is convinced that the other owes one more payment, and the other swears it was paid in full.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b9d1cac00c18cae042e4afd946a53db0",
"text": "You should only loan money to friends or relatives if you are fully accepting the possibility of never ever getting that money back. And in this situation it can happen that you will be forced to give him a very large loan if something bad ever happens to him. (Paying the monthly rates instead of him and expecting he will someday pay it back to you is technically the same as loaning him money). Something might happen in the future which will result in him not paying his monthly payments. Maybe not now, but in 5 years. Or 10. The economy might change, he might be out of a job, his personal values might change. A house mortgage is long term, and during that time a lot can happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41f0b1acb57b7544bd49bad2965c8fb9",
"text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c23a1e24ab98e5bdc93c4eaa97a24cd2",
"text": "It may or may not be a good idea to borrow money from your family; there are many factors to consider here, not the least of which is what you would do if you got in serious financial trouble and couldn't make your scheduled payments on the loan. Would you arrange with them to sell the property ASAP? Or could they easily manage for a few months without your scheduled payments if it were necessary? A good rule of thumb that some people follow when lending to family is this: don't do it unless you're 100% OK with the possibility that they might not pay you back at all. That said, your question was about credit scores specifically. Having a mortgage and making on-time payments would factor into your score, but not significantly more heavily than having revolving credit (eg a credit card) and making on time payments, or having a car loan or installment loan and making on time payments. I bought my house in 2011, and after years of paying the mortgage on time my credit score hasn't changed at all. MyFico has a breakdown of factors affecting your credit score here: http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/whatsinyourscore.aspx. The most significant are a history of on-time payments, low revolving credit utilization (carrying a $4900 balance on a card with a $5000 limit is bad, carrying a $10 balance on the same card is good), and overall length of your credit history. As to credit mix, they have this to say: Types of credit in use Credit mix determines 10% of my FICO Score The FICO® Score will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. It's not necessary to have one of each, and it's not a good idea to open credit accounts you don’t intend to use. The credit mix usually won’t be a key factor in determining your FICO Score—but it will be more important if your credit report does not have a lot of other information on which to base a score. Have credit cards – but manage them responsibly Having credit cards and installment loans with a good payment history will raise your FICO Score. People with no credit cards tend to be viewed as a higher risk than people who have managed credit cards responsibly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea5ed56378c9936a96de6c4b4b832dca",
"text": "Never co-sign a loan for someone, especially family Taking out a loan for yourself is bad enough, but co-signing a loan is just plain stupid. Think about it, if the bank is asking for a co-signer its because they are not very confident that the applicant is going to be paying back the loan. So why would you then step up and say I'll pay back the loan if they don't, make me a co-signer please. Here is a list of things that people never think about when they cosign a loan for somebody. Now if you absolutely must co-sign a loan here is how I would do it. I, the co-signer would be the one who makes the payments to ensure that the loan was paid on time and I would be the one collecting the payment from the person who is getting the loan. Its a very simple way of preventing some of the worst situations that can arise and you should be willing to make the payments anyway after all thats what it means to cosign a loan. Your just turning things around and paying the loan upfront instead of paying after the applicant defaults and ruins every ones credit. (Source: user's own blog post Never co-sign a loan for someone, especially family)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6e78d648403a607c83fb538ac0fd1d7",
"text": "I have recently been the lender to a couple people. It was substantially less money (~$3k), but I was trusting their good faith to pay me back. As a lender, I will never do it again. Reasons, Overall, not worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5d08e321efc507002eba796822e1af0",
"text": "\"Is there any way through this? Yes, but you're not going to like it. If your friend has guaranteed the loans, then it's your friend's obligation to pay them when the brother-in-law is not cooperating. That's what it means to guarantee a loan. (Obligatory: \"\"Before lending your friends or family money, ask yourself which you need more.\"\")\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd08117069dd39c471f4e395776830a6",
"text": "You are using interchangeably borrow/loan and gift. They are very different. For the mortgage company, they would prefer that the money from friends and family be a gift. If it is a loan, then you have an obligation to pay it back. If they see money added to your bank accounts in the months just before getting the loan, they will ask for the source of the money. Anything you claim as a gift will be required to be documented by you and the person making the gift. You don't want to lie about it, and have the other person lie about it. They will make you sign documents, if they catch you in a lie you can lose the loan, or be prosecuted for fraud. If the money from friends and family is a loan, the payments for the loan will impact the amount of money you can borrow. From the view of the IRS the gift tax only comes into play if during one calendar year a person makes a gift to somebody else of 14,000 or more. There are two points related to this. It is person-to-person. So if your dad gives you 14K, and your mom gives you 14K, and your dad gives your wife 14k and your mom gives your wife 14K; everything is fine. So two people can give 2 people 56K in one year. Please use separate checks to make it clear to the IRS. If somebody gives a gift above the exclusion limit for the year, they will have to complete IRS form 709. This essentially removes the excess amount from their life time exclusion, in other words from their estate. Nothing to worry about from the IRS. The bank wants to see the documentation. Also you are not a charity, so they can't claim it as a donation. Why do you have 6,000 in cash sitting around. The mortgage company will want an explanation for all large deposits so you better have a good explanation. From the IRS FAQ on Gift Taxes: What can be excluded from gifts? The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts. Number 3 on the list is the one you care about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0d0e81aa21e392f24788edd720dc46c",
"text": "If you take out a personal loan, rather than a mortgage or car loan or hire-purchase agreement or other loan that's for making a specific purchase, then you can do whatever you want with the money. Send it abroad, burn it, spend it on expensive whisky -- it's up to you. The country you want to send the money to might have rules on transferring money into the country, but there will be no impediment at the UK end.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc69b5becafdd5a0acf8cdec4b066be4",
"text": "a. Depends on whether it is a gift (no tax, but need to file gift tax form against his lifetime exclusion) or a loan (in which case he needs to charge fair market interest, which he can forgive as a gift with no gift tax form, but for which will need to pay tax on the forgiven income. b. This is a definite possibility. Probably depends on the specific lender, but I would imagine this might be questioned, especially if there is an expectation of paying him back. c. Relationships. I would always avoid mixing family and finances in this way. Do you want your family gatherings to be tainted by owing him money? What if you fall on hard times? What if you go on a nice vacation instead of paying him back faster?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b068ed80d2622176669138ee89886956",
"text": "\"Your Spidey senses are good. A good friend would not put you in such a position. It's simple, to skirt some issue (we'll get to that in a second) you are being asked to lie. All for a 15% return on your $$$$. <<< How much is that? You can easily lend him the money, and have a better paper trail. But the bank is not going to like that, and requires this money from friends or family to be a gift. I've heard mortgage guys at the bank say \"\"It's just a formality, we need this paperwork to sell the loan to the investors.\"\" These bankers belong in jail, or at least fired and barred from the industry. They broke the economy in 2008, and should be stopped from doing it again.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21085de52a29bd061a17dba0d67f4927",
"text": "\"Basically, you either borrow money, or get other people to invest in your business by buying stock or something analogous. Sometimes you can get people to \"\"park\"\" money with you. For example, many people deposit money in a bank checking account. They don't get any interest or other profit from this, they just do it because the bank is a convenient place to store their money. The bank then loans some percentage of this money out and keeps the interest. I don't doubt that people have come up with more clever ways to use other people's money. Borrowing money for an investment or business venture is risky because if you lose money, you may be unable to pay it back. On the other hand, investors expect a share of the profit, not just a fixed interest rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51c97062f6e948df006f5fb2e8511fa4",
"text": "\"Some very general advice. Lifestyle borrowing is almost always a bad idea. You should limit your borrowing to where it is an investment decision or where it is necessary and avoid it when it is a lifestyle choice. For example, many people need to borrow to have a car/house/education or go without. Also, if you are unemployed for a long period of time and can't find work, charging up the credit cards seems very reasonable. However, for things like entertainment, travel, and other nice-to-haves can easily become a road to crushing debt. If you don't have the cash for these types of things, my suggestion is to put off the purchase until you do. Note: I am not including credit cards that you pay off in full at the end of the month or credit used as a convenience as \"\"borrowing\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93ebb159e186123a4374d20a007ad6cd",
"text": "When borrowing a small sum from a bank, there's usually no collateral. i.e. no property to put a lien on, no gems put in a vault. It's a personal loan. A loan for a plane ticket for you or for them wont make a difference. If they have the borrowing ability, it's their loan. That said, if your family finances are so tight, no one can buy a full round trip ticket, you should not be taking this trip. If your (whole family) savings is not above 3-6 months living expenses, you still shouldn't take this trip.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "135b37b7948dbd97c8af6da4003abfa7",
"text": "In terms of preserving good relationships one approach is to charge a nominal rate of interest. maybe a few percent of the total and agree a time when it should be paid back. This may actually make them feel better about borrowing them money, especially, especially if it is something like business loan or buying a house or car. If they need the money for a real crisis and they have no clear strategy for paying it back then it may just be better all around if you make it clear that it is a gift. What you don't want to do is set up a situation where you are creating unnecessary problems down the road and that will very much depend on your individual relationship and how seriously you take the loan. Here it is important that you are completely open and honest about the arrangement so take the time to make sure that both parties understand exactly what they expect from each other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f0b903950a1053f212b9ac7900561d",
"text": "There are interpersonal relationships risks which you should consider. These are most likely to eventuate following a financial problem, and depend on your existing relationship. In this answer I'm going to focus on the financial risks. This is not financial advice, but my understanding as someone who has done this. This is best thought of as a loan from my parents to myself. The main financial risks for my parents (the lenders): To avoid these risks, I need to ensure that I am sufficient ahead of loan repayments that I have the full amount of principal available to repay at any time. Redraw Facility While some loans may allow for redraw, you should check the fine print of your loan agreement. A redraw is like borrowing from the bank using existing collateral. There could be some circumstances under which the bank does not allow redraw, even though you are ahead of loan repayments. This might happen if house prices drop enough that you no longer have equity. Offset Account To avoid this problem, the loaned money is best put in an offset account. An offset account reduces the interest on the loan. Importantly, the money in the offset account is yours. Withdrawal from the offset account does not represent a new borrowing but is a withdrawal from savings account. Savings are government guaranteed to some figure.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6086ef7d21c8fd401c623336d281d62e
|
I got my bank account closed abruptly how do I get money out?
|
[
{
"docid": "9c1ec6fea975a2bcd25777443e1c8908",
"text": "This is very possibly a scam. The way the scam works is that the scammers send you a letter and demand you call the telephone number. But the telephone number belongs to the scammers, not the bank. When you call the number, they will 'authenticate' you by asking you a bunch of questions. They will then have enough information to call the bank and pretend to be you, and transfer out all of your money. What you need to do is to find the telephone number for your bank without making use of this letter. For example, look at a previous bank statement, or find the telephone number on the bank's website. Call that number and discuss this letter. If you have already called the number in the letter and if you have the slightest reason to believe it is not valid, stop reading. This is an emergency. Immediately call a legitimate number at the bank. Explain the situation and note that you believe your information has been compromised. Why are you still reading? Do it now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "538d00b01cd78aa88c96dc839feefdad",
"text": "First, make sure you are contacting the bank directly - use an old invoice you have on hand with a phone number direct to the bank and call them. Do not use the provided number, or you may wind up being pulled into a scam (It is entirely possible that the bank is also confused at this point - so you should not rely on the number provided at all). Second, once you can confirm that your account is being closed, find out when it is being closed so you know when you need to act on it - it's possible you still have access to your account, and do not need to launch into a panic just yet. Third, get the bank to explain exactly why they are closing your account - make it clear that if they cannot explain, you will be forced to transfer to a new account and close business with them permanently - this is not a threat, this is a matter of fact because... Finally, if you cannot keep your account open, find a different bank and open up a new account. Frankly, if your current bank is closing your account and only managed to get a letter out to you a month late, you should probably find a new bank. If instead they simply cannot figure out if your bank account is closed or not, this is also a bad sign and you may want a new bank account anyway. But please, go through these steps in order, because you need to verify with your bank what is going on. Keep @Brick 's answer in mind as well, in case you need to get your money out of your account quickly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9fb9a566fba1ecb9104bd4270b8e34a",
"text": "If you can get to a physical branch, get a cashier's check (or call them and have them send you one by mail). When they draft the cashier's check they remove the money from your account immediately and the check is drawn against the bank itself. You could hold onto that check for a little while even after your account closes and you make other arrangements for banking. If you cannot get a cashier's check, then you should try to expeditiously open a new account and do an ACH from old to new. This might take more days to set up than you have left though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57b3624471dc64a3d30fedfa0b56435f",
"text": "\"Coming from someone who has worked a in the account servicing department of an actual bank in the US, other answers are right, this is probably a scam, the phone number on the letter is probably ringing to a fraudulent call center (these are very well managed and sound professional), and you must independently locate and dial the true contact number to US Bank. NOW. Tell them what happened. Reporting is critical. Securing your money is critical. Every piece of information you provided \"\"the bank\"\" when you called needs to be changed or worked around. Account numbers, passwords, usernames, card numbers get changed. Tax ID numbers get de-prioritized as an authentication mechanism even if the government won't change them. The true bank probably won't transfer you to the branch. If the front-line call center says they will, ask the person on the phone what the branch can do that they cannot. Information is your friend. They will probably transfer you to a special department that handles these reports. Apparently Union Bank's call center transfers you to the branch then has the branch make this transfer. Maybe their front-line call center team is empowered to handle it like I was. Either way, plug your phone in; if the call takes less than 5 minutes they didn't actually do everything. 5 to 8 minutes per department is more likely, plus hold time. There's a lot of forms they're filling out. What if that office is closed because of time differences? Go online and ask for an ATM limit increase. Start doing cash advances at local banks if your card allows it. Just get that money out of that account before it's in a fraudsters account. Keep receipts, even if the machine declines the transaction. Either way, get cash on hand while you wait for a new debit card and checks for the new account you're going to open. What if this was fraud, you draw your US Bank account down to zero $800 at a time, and you don't close it or change passwords? Is it over? No. Then your account WILL get closed, and you will owe EVERYTHING that the fraudsters rack up (these charges can put your account terrifyingly far in the negative) from this point forward. This is called \"\"participation in a scam\"\" in your depository agreement, because you fell victim to it, didn't report, and the info used was voluntarily given. You will also lose any of your money that they spend. What if US Bank really is closing your account? Then they owe you every penny you had in it. (Minus any fees allowed in the depository agreement). This closure can happen several days after the date on the warning, so being able to withdraw doesn't mean you're safe. Banks usually ship an official check shipped to the last known address they had for you. Why would a bank within the United States close my account when it's not below the minimum balance? Probably because your non-resident alien registration from when you were in school has expired and federal law prohibits them from doing business with you now. These need renewed at least every three years. Renewing federally is not enough; the bank must be aware of the updated expiration date. How do I find out why my account is being closed? You ask the real US Bank. They might find that it's not being closed. Good news! Follow the scam reporting procedure, open a new account (with US Bank if you want, or elsewhere) and close the old one. If it IS being closed by the bank, they'll tell you why, and they'll tell you what your next options are. Ask what can be done. Other commenters are right that bitcoin activity may have flagged it. That activity might actually be against your depository agreement. Or it set off a detection system. Or many other reasons. The bank who services your account is the only place that knows for sure. If I offer them $500 per year will they likely keep the account opened? Otherwise I got to go to singapore open another account Legitimate financial institutions in the United States don't work this way. If there is a legal problem with your tax status in the US, money to the bank won't solve it. Let's call the folks you've talked to \"\"FraudBank\"\" and the real USBank \"\"RealBank,\"\" because until RealBank confirms, we have no reason to believe that the letter is real. FraudBank will ask for money. Don't give it. Don't give them any further information. Gather up as much information from them as possible instead. Where to send it, for example. Then report that to RealBank. RealBank won't have a way to charge $500/year to you only. If they offer a type of account to everyone that costs $500, ask for the \"\"Truth in Savings Act disclosures.\"\" Banks are legally required to provide these upon request. Then read them. Don't put or keep your money anywhere you don't understand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd604ea54d8a648a31fca92060615986",
"text": "First, if your account has been closed you should not be able to use your debit card in any format. As you mentioned that you are able to use that so your back account is active. So this indicates it is a scam In case account is closed, bank confirms your address and will send you a cheque for the amount in your account. Don't worry. You money will never be lost",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1d572b9345892ac7846a98e286c53a59",
"text": "In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment. If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out. I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e4d147b2b4432f5dcf87c40276ab22f",
"text": "\"Several options are available. She may ask the US bank to issue a debit card (VISA most probably) to her account, and mail this card to Russia. I think this can be done without much problems, though sending anything by mail may be unreliable. After this she just withdraws the money from local ATM. Some withdrawal fee may apply, which may be rather big if the sum of money is big. In big banks (Alfa-bank, Citibank Russia, etc.) are ATMs that allow you to withdraw dollars, and it is better to use one of them to avoid unfavorable exchange rate. She may ask the US bank to transfer the money to her Russian account. I assume the currency on the US bank account is US Dollars. She needs an US dollar account in any Russian bank (this is no problem at all). She should find out from that bank the transfer parameters (реквизиты) for transfering US dollars to her account. This should include, among other info, a \"\"Bank correspondent\"\", and a SWIFT code (or may be two SWIFT codes). After this, she should contact her US bank and find out how can she request the money to be transferred to her Russian bank, providing these transfer parameters. I can think of two problems that may be here. First, the bank may refuse to transfer money without her herself coming to the bank to confirm her identity. (How do they know that a person writing or calling them is she indeed?) However, I guess there should be some workaround for this. Second, with current US sanctions against Russia, the bank may just refuse the transfer or will have do some additional investigations. However, I have heard that bank transfers from US to private persons to Russia are not blocked. Probably it is good to find this out in advance. In addition, the US bank will most probably charge some standard fee for foreign transfer. After this, she should wait for a couple of days, maybe up to week for the money to appear on Russian account. I have done this once some four years ago, and had no problems, though at that time I was in the US, so I just came to the bank myself. The bank employee to whom I talked obviously was unsure whether the transfer parameters were enough (obviously this was a very unusual situation for her), but she took the information from me, and I guess just passed it on to someone more knowledgable. The fee was something about $40. Another option that I might think of is her US bank issuing and mailing her a check for the whole sum, and she trying to cash it here in Russia. This is possible, but very few banks do cash checks here (Citibank Russia is among those that do). The bank will also charge a fee, and it will be comparable to transfer fee. Plus mailing anything is not quite reliable here. She would also have to consider whether she need to pay Russian taxes on this sum. If the sum is big and passes through a bank, I guess Russian tax police may find this out through and question her. If it is withdrawn from a VISA card, I think it will not be noticed, but even in this case she might be required to file a tax herself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "979a7afcff571abf2bab1590b05a252b",
"text": "\"If there was still money in the account when it was closed, the bank would have turned over the cash to the state where they operated. Search Google for \"\"unclaimed property <state name>\"\" for the unclaimed property department of the state. The state's website will show if there is money for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "687883f52451d0e23983d4a65459900d",
"text": "If I were you, I would go to the bank right now, pay the $100 and close the account. I would stop the bleeding first then consider the fallout later. Do you own the account jointly with your partner(s) as a partner or does the partnership (a separate formal entity) own the bank account with you a named representative? Those are two very different situations. If you're a joint owner, you're liable for the fees; along with your other partners in accordance with your partnership agreement. You never closed yourself off the account and that's your problem. If the dissolved partnership owns the account, you're not personally liable for the fees. You were never a personal owner of the account, now that the account is negative you don't magically become personally liable. The differences here are very nuanced and the details matter. If this were a large amount of money I'd suggest you go see a lawyer. Since this is about $100 I'd just pay it, make sure the account is closed, and move on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11c9b3d0363b550de540aa34f698e3b1",
"text": "You haven't mentioned the country. As a general premise, you own them money and the fact that the account was closed has no bearing on the fact that you own them money. My suggestion would be pay them off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23d1fd7eb4061a4e562aef4f5efda6af",
"text": "Such funds are handed over to the state. In NE, like in many states, there is a government website where you can search by your name, find them, and claim them (with proof of your identity, etc.): https://treasurer.nebraska.gov/up/ For sure, the bank cannot just take the money. It is sitting somewhere, the bank just closed the account, meaning they are technically not managing your money anymore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34397e8b79483998ce2f1fc4a02962f7",
"text": "Additionally my understanding is that a Faster Payment is as good as cash once received. Yes it is but there is a caveat. Read on unauthorized payments on Faster Payments website. Either the sender is fraudulently claiming this was unauthorised, or their bank doesn't have adequate security standards - why is it me who loses out here? Agreed. You should take this up [dispute the action] with your bank asking why your account was closed as there is no fraud from your side. Make sure you do all the follow-up with writing and provide evidence of the trade being genuine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d17c12d9c0392b1881adaa68bbdca8ea",
"text": "Banks make mistakes. Reconciling your account with your bank statement is the way to catch the errors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "179d6735ab4c860b4a12c3a59de3198b",
"text": "There are two (main) ways of transferring large sums of money between banks in such a situation. 1) Have your bank mail a cashier's check. They may or may not charge you for this (some banks charge up to $6, the bank I work at doesn't charge at all). You have to wait for the check to go through the mail, but it usually takes just a few days. 2) Wire the money. This could cost $50 or more in combined fees (usually around $30 to send and $20 to receive), but you get same day credit for the funds. The limits to online transfers are in place to protect you, so that if someone gets into your account the amount of damage they can do is limited. If you need those limits lifted temporarily, check with your bank about doing so - they may be willing to adjust them for you for a brief period (a day or two).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73ce7a1209fe31f5112a211e3c68c64f",
"text": "\"It sounds like you are isolated and in a small town. Without the true ability to bank, perhaps you should move. As an alternative you could do some kind of online banking. Most banks offer the ability to deposit via mobile phone and you could obtain cash by using remote ATMs or writing checks for an amount over your purchase at the grocery store. How are you paid? If via direct deposit, that makes mobile banking even easier. Did your read your premise out loud? Using Game Stop as a bank is just silly. Are you banned from banks because of not paying child support or some other legal obligation? If so just \"\"face the music\"\". I know people that are over 40 and owed a relatively small amount of child support and the result of they lost out on order of magnitudes greater income. It was just a short-sighted move that cost them far more than if they just obeyed the court order. It would be smarter to use a check cashing store, like AmScott, to do your banking. They will cash checks for a fee, issue money orders, or even allow you to pay some bills directly through them. Never, ever use them to cash a hot check or for short term financing but using them or Walmart, or the Grocery store is a much better option than Game Stop.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d264105e40d167955f554e771e82d0d",
"text": "\"Change the password on your bank account immediately. This is certainly a scam, and while they have your login info they can cause you even bigger problems. As soon as possible, contact your bank and let them know what happened. If you look at the links in the \"\"Related\"\" list you'll see that this is a fairly common scam. It relies on the fact that some forms of fraudulent deposit take a while for the bank to detect. Sometime in the next month, the bank is going to find out that the deposit of $2500 is bogus, say from a bad check, forged money order, or some other fraudulent source. When that happens, the bank is going to undo the deposit, and demand that you make good any of the deposit that has been spent (including the $50 that has already gone to PayPal). The bank may also suspect you of being in cahoots with the depositor, so you may find yourself talking to the local police, accused of fraud. You've put yourself in a bad spot by giving your password out. Unless your can present other evidence, the bank will have a strong assumption that any activity conducted via the login is performed by you. This is why you should get in touch with your bank right away, to build up some evidence of good will on your part. More remote possibilities are that it is part of a 'long con', where somebody is trying to find out how credulous/greedy you are. This seems unlikely. Unless you are a plum target, few con artists would want to risk as much as $2500. Theoretically it could be some sort of money laundering set up, but amounts involved seem too small for that to be likely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0a0cf5385af2ce94620b5ad4c36a38c",
"text": "Looks like you have three options: Outside of this you might need to look for a different type of account. Hope that helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccc5d2a7688d21b0059a0f0a604dc7b1",
"text": "So My question is. Is my credit score going to be hit? Yes it will affect your credit. Not as much as missing payments on the debt, which remains even if the credit line is closed, and not as much as missing payments on other bills... If so what can I do about it? Not very much. Nothing worth the time it would take. Like you mentioned, reopening the account or opening another would likely require a credit check and the inquiry will add another negative factor. In this situation, consider the impact on your credit as fact and the best way to correct it is to move forward and pay all your bills on time. This is the number one key to improving credit score. So, right now, the key task is finding a new job. This will enable you to make all payments on time. If you pay on time and do not overspend, your credit score will be fine. Can I contact the creditors to appeal the decision and get them to not affect my score at the very least? I know they won't restore the account without another credit check). Is there anything that can be done directly with the credit score companies? Depending on how they characterize the closing of the account, it may be mostly a neutral event that has a negative impact than a negative event. By negative events, I'm referring to bankruptcy, charge offs, and collections. So the best way to recover is to keep credit utilization below 30% and pay all your bills and debt payments on time. (You seem to be asking how to replace this line of credit to help you through your unemployment.) As for the missing credit line and your current finances, you have to find a way forward. Opening new credit account while you're not employed is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. You might find yourself in a situation where you need to take whatever part time gig you can find in order to make ends meet until your job search is complete. Grocery store, fast food, wait staff, delivery driver, etc. And once you get past this period of unemployment, you'll need to catch up on all bills, then you'll want to build your emergency fund. You don't mention one, but eating, paying rent/mortgage, keeping current on bills, and paying debt payments are the reasons behind the emergency fund, and the reason you need it in a liquid account. Source: I'm a veteran of decades of bad choices when it comes to money, of being unemployed for periods of time, of overusing credit cards, and generally being irresponsible with my income and savings. I've done all those things and am now paying the price. In order to rebuild my credit, and provide for my retirement, I'm having to work very hard to save. My focus being financial health, not credit score, I've brought my bottom line from approximately 25k in the red up to about 5k in the red. The first step was getting my payments under control. I have also been watching my credit score. Two years of on time mortgage payments, gradual growth of score. Paid off student loans, uptick in score. Opened new credit card with 0% intro rate to consolidate a couple of store line of credit accounts. Transferred those balances. Big uptick. Next month when utilization on that card hits 90%, downtick that took back a year's worth of gains. However, financially, I'm not losing 50-100 a month to interest. TLDR; At certain times, you have to ignore the credit score and focus on the important things. This is one of those times for you. Find a job. Get back on your feet. Then look into living debt free, or working to achieve financial independence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "35a05cfc4c1ac63cbf2f0d766a3e4561",
"text": "\"How can someone use the account number to withdraw money without my consent? They can use your account number to game your banks phone support and try to phish their way into your account. Banks have gotten very good at combating this, but theoretically with just the address he lives in, your name, and a bad bank phone rep, he could get into your business. The account number would just be one more piece of information to lead with. I have 1 savings and 3 checking accounts with the same bank. Would they be able to gain access to the other accounts? Dependent on how incompetent the bad bank rep I referenced above is, sure. But the odds are incredibly low, and if anything were to happen, the bank would be falling over itself to fix it and make reparations so that you don't sue for a whole crap ton more. Is there a more secure and still free option that I have overlooked? Opening up yet another checking account solely for accounts receivable and transfer to accounts payable would keep your financial records more transparent. Also, banks are doing \"\"money transfer by email\"\" now, so I don't know how great that is for business transactions, but in that instance you're just giving out an email linked to a money receiving account instead of an actual account number. Paypal is also a pretty good EFT middleman, but their business practices have become shady in the past 5 years.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
45b50eb7f2219f81908feee6303a4b56
|
Double-entry bookkeeping: When selling an asset, does the money come from, Equity or Income?
|
[
{
"docid": "531b1aba2b2c8be716305089b22240a9",
"text": "\"There are basically two approaches, based on how detailed you want to be in your own personal accounting: Obviously the more like a business or like \"\"real\"\" accounting you want to be, the more complex you can make it, but in general I find that the purpose of personal accounting is (1) to track what I own, and (2) to ensure I have documented anything I need to for tax purposes, and as long as you're meeting those goals any reasonable approach is workable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36933c8b079e518d1fe172462a6c9355",
"text": "It's better to use the accounting equation concept: Asset + Expenses = Capital + Liabilities + Income If you purchase an asset: Suppose you purchased a laptop of $ 500, then its journal will be: If you sell the same Laptop for $ 500, then its entry will be:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1de1971a83164f2f91c1ca34eb3d445",
"text": "\"Selling an asset is not earning income. You are basically moving value from one asset (the laptop) to another (your bank account.) So you reduce the equity that is \"\"value of all my electronics\"\" and you increase the asset that is your bank account. In your case, you never entered the laptop in some category called \"\"value of all my electronics\"\" so you don't have that to make a double-entry against. The temptation is high to call it income as a result. Depending on the reason for all this double-entry book-keeping for personal finances, that may be fine. Or, you can create a category for balancing and use that, and realize the (negative) value of that account doesn't mean much.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "afafec3ae79fa797fcb2e00de3988080",
"text": "For reporting purposes, I would treat the purchase and sale of gold like a purchase and sale of a stock. The place to do so is Schedule D. (And if it's the wrong form, but you reported it, there is might not be a penalty, whereas there is a penalty for NOT reporting.) The long term gain would be at capital gains rates. The short term gain would be at ordinary income rates. And if you have two coins bought at two different times, you get to choose which one to report (as long as you report the OTHER one when you sell the second coin).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b92b6e2f3a8d740509e76d0c66896bf",
"text": "\"The bank will make this even more confusing because they use the terms from their own perspective. From the bank's perspective (printed on your statements) credit: Money into your account (increases the bank's liabilities) debit: Money out of your account (decrease bank liabilities) From your perspective: It depends on the nature of the transfer of money, but here are the most common for a personal account. Income into your account: Credit Expenses out of your account: Debit Payment on a loan made for an asset (house/car): Credit for the loan account, debit for the equity account for the car/house/etc. Yes, it's complicated. Neither credits nor debits are always a + or -. That's why I agree with the advice of the others here that double-entry accounting is overkill for your personal finances. Note: I simplified the above examples for the purpose of clarity. Technically every transaction in double entry accounting includes both a credit and a debit (hence the \"\"double\"\" in the name). In fact, sometimes a transaction involves more than one credit or debit, but always at least one of each. Also, this is for EACH party. So any transaction between you and your bank involves at least FOUR debits and/or credits when all involved are considered.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb6523e22504bb769d3d28f4eef746a",
"text": "It took me a while to understand the concept, so I'll break it down as best as I can. There are three parts to the accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity We'll look at this in two ways 1. As a business owner you invest (say) 10,000 USD into your bank. The entry would be: Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Contributions for 10,000 In this case, you have assets of 10,000 from your deposit, but it is due to owner contributions and not business transactions. Another example (say a sale): Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Sales for 10,000 Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Liabilities: Deposits for 10,000 Deposits are a banking term to reflect a bank's obligation to return the amount on demand (though the bank has free reign with it, see fractional banking) You will NEVER debit or credit your bank as it is assumed you will be storing your money there, note bank reconciliation. Hope this helps, comment with any more questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fcd12b68dda2f645cb239640c5a2a3b",
"text": "\"From your question, I believe that you are looking for what these mean in accounting terms and not the difference between a debit and a credit card. I'll deal with purchase and sale first as this is easier. They are the same thing seen from different points of view. If I sell something to you then I have made a sale and you have made a purchase. Every sale is a purchase and every purchase is a sale. Debits and Credits are accounting terms and refer to double column accounting (the most common accounting system used). The way a set of accounts works is, accounts are set up under the following broad headings: The first 3 appear on the Balance Sheet, so called because the accounts balance (Assets = Liabilities + Equity). This is always a \"\"point-in-time\"\" snapshot of the accounts (1 June 2015). That last 3 appear on the Profit and Loss sheet, Profit (or loss) = Income - Cost of Goods Sold - Expenses. This is always an interval measure (1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015). Changes in these accounts flow through to the Equity part of the Balance Sheet. When you enter a transaction the Debits always equal the Credits, they are simply applied to different accounts. Debits increase Assets, Cost of Goods Sold and Expenses and decrease Liabilities, Equity and Income. Credits do the reverse For your examples: 1. a customer buy something from me, what is the debit and credit? I will assume they pay $1,000 and the thing cost you $500 Your cash (asset) goes up by $1,000 (Debit), your inventory (asset) goes down by $500 (Credit), your Sales revenue (income) goes up by $500 (credit). This gives you a profit of $500. 2. a customer buy something of worth 1000 but gives me 500 what is debit and credit Your cash (asset) goes up by $500 (Debit), your debtors (asset) goes up by $500, your inventory (asset) goes down by $500 (Credit), your Sales revenue (income) goes up by $500 (credit). This also gives you a profit of $500. 3. if I buy a product from supplier worth 1000 and pay equally what is credit and debit I assume you mean pay cash: Your cash (asset) goes down by $1000 (Credit), your inventory (asset) goes up by $1000 (Debit). There is no profit or loss here - you have swapped one asset (cash) for another (inventory). 4. if I buy a product from supplier worth 1000 and don't pay what is credit and debit Your creditors (liability) goes up by $1000 (Credit), your inventory (asset) goes up by $1000 (Debit). There is no profit or loss here - you have gained an asset (inventory) but incurred a liability (creditors). The reason for confusion is that most people only see Debits and Credits in one place - their bank statement. Your bank statement is a journal of one of the banks liability accounts - its their liability because they owe the money to you (even loan accounts adopt this convention). Credits happen when you give money to the bank, they credit your account (increase a liability) and debit their cash balance (increase an asset). Debits are when they give money to you, they debit your account (decrease a liability) and credit their cash balance (decrease an asset) . If at the end of the period, you have a credit balance then they owe money to you, a debit balance means you owe money to them. If you were keeping a book of accounts then your record of the transactions would be a mirror image of the bank's because you would be looking at it from your point of view.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8422693db687a36bf9cb06ee289c6cec",
"text": "I don't think you need double-entry bookkeeping. To quote Robert Kiyosaki (roughly): Income is when money enters you pocket, and expenses are when money leaves your pocket. Income is an addition; expenses are subtractions. But if you want double-entry accounting, I'm not qualified to answer that. :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41372fce8481716fd887860e6d3e94db",
"text": "The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a25b57209b7b65d9120b4099816dbf27",
"text": "Generally, the answer is as follows: If there is a legal obligation to pay cash flow (including the possibility of court determined restructuring), then it is debt. If the asset owner is not guaranteed any cash flow, but instead owns the *residual* cash flow from the operations of the business (I.e. the cash flow left-over), then it is equity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b987480a00109e250c5865bd585c4a7f",
"text": "\"If you are considering this to be an entry for your business this is how you would handle it.... You said you were making a balance sheet for monthly expenses. So on the Balance Sheet, you would be debiting cash. For the Income Statement side you would be crediting Owner's Equity to balance the equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity So if you deposited $100 to your account the equation would be affected thus: $ 100 in Assets (Debit to Cash Account) = 0 Liabilities - $100 (Credit to Owner's Equity) It is correctly stated above from the bank's perspective that they would be \"\"Crediting\"\" you account with $100, and any outflow from the bank account would be debiting your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2feb74b8173e7cfcdc17af615e980e0",
"text": "The HMRC website would explain it better to you. There is a lot of factors and conditions involved, so refer to the HMRC website for clarification. If your question had more details, it could have been easy to pinpoint the exact answer. Do I declare the value of shares as income Why would you do that ? You haven't generated income from that yet(sold it to make a profit/loss), so how can that be declared as income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dce0b157b2a2d90afcda05c20b8bd8a",
"text": "I mean isn't it implied that cash flows increase by the amount of the benefit of the investment each year? I'm a little shaky on cash flows tbh. My scope may be limited compared to yours I've never taken a financial management class but just from financial accounting knowledge since I recently finished that, it seems like cash flows would be increased if revenues are increased. Unless the revenue increase is for some reason solely in the form of accounts receivable or some asset other than cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7a0db3a6ebee00e142ce84292f72158",
"text": "There are two basic issues here. First, there is the difference between accounting terms and their dictionary definitions. Second, once you dig into it there are dichotomies similar to put vs call options, long sales vs short sales, bond yield vs interest rate. (That is, while they are relatively simple ideas and opposite sides of the same coin, it will probably take some effort to get comfortable with them.) The salient points from the Wikipedia article on debits and credits: In double-entry bookkeeping debit is used for increases in asset and expense transactions and credit is used for increases in a liability, income (gain) or equity transaction. For bank transactions, money deposited in a checking account is treated as a credit transaction (increase) and money paid out is treated as a debit transaction, because checking account balances are bank liabilities. If cash is deposited, the cash becomes a bank asset and is treated as a debit transaction (increase) to a bank asset account. Thus a cash deposit becomes two equal increases: a debit to cash on hand and a credit to a customer's checking account. Your bank account is an asset to you, but a liability to your bank. That makes for a third issue, namely perspective.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b66aecaca3cfc6d1bf0b48153f487a92",
"text": "Yes, at that stage income is income regardless of source. Assuming you're talking about overall profit, not just the individual wins when gambling.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b15c9fd643cb2c2f0c419a99905e9ad",
"text": "Capital is an Asset. Decreasing value of capital is the decreasing value of an asset. When you buy the forex asset * DR Forex Asset * CR Cash When you sell * DR Cash * CR Forex Asset The difference is now accounted for Here is how: Gains (and losses) are modifications to your financial position (Balance sheet). At the end of the period you take your financial performance (Profit and Loss) and put it into your balance sheet under equity. Meaning that afterwards your balance sheet is better or worse off (Because you made more money = more cash or lost it, whatever). You are wanting to make an income account to reflect the forex revaluation so at the end of the period it is reflected in profit then pushed into your balance sheet. Capital gains directly affect your balance sheet because they increase/decrease your cash and your asset in the journal entry itself (When you buy and sell it). If making money this way is actually how you make you make an income it is possible to make an account for it. If you do this you periodically revalue the asset and write off the changes to the revaluation account. You would do something like *DR Asset *CR Forex Revaluation account; depending on the method you take. Businesses mostly do this because if the capital gains are their line of business they will be taxed on it like it is income. For simplicity just account for it when you buy and sell the assets (Because you as an individual will only recognise a profit/loss when you enter and exit). Its easier to think about income and expenses are extensions of equity. Income increases your equity, expenses decrease it. This is how they relate to the accounting formula (Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0096dd384006c1554bf01aae183b360c",
"text": "I debited the principal and interest accruals to an asset account and credited an equity account Why equity? This is clearly income. Generally, except for open balances and additional owner's investment - you wouldn't credit the equity accounts, ever.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a48d26db49b7cce01b23f85ca9c3f47",
"text": "\"This is a technical term referring to the \"\"double entry\"\"-styled book keeping of trades by brokers. Suppose a client executes a buy order with their broker. The broker's accounting for this \"\"trade\"\" will be recorded as two different \"\"deals\"\" : One \"\"deal\"\" showing the client as buyer and the broker as seller, and a second \"\"deal\"\" showing the broker as buyer and the clearing house as seller. The net result of these two deals is that the broker has no net position while the client has a net buy and the clearing house has a net sell with respect to this broker's account as accounted for internally by the broker. (And the same methods apply for a client sell order.) The client/broker \"\"deal\"\" record - i.e., the client side of the trade - is called the \"\"client side booking\"\", while the broker/clearing house \"\"deal\"\" record is called the \"\"street side booking\"\".\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c63f36bce0258ac6cd52bb4d0264696e
|
What foreign exchange rate is used for foreign credit card and bank transactions?
|
[
{
"docid": "53b920a8744acc0df88502e7a62a2264",
"text": "A lot of questions, but all it boils down to is: . Banks usually perform T+1 net settlements, also called Global Netting, as opposed to real-time gross settlements. That means they promise the counterparty the money at some point in the future (within the next few business days, see delivery versus payment) and collect all transactions of that kind. For this example say, they will have a net outflow of 10M USD. The next day they will purchase 10M USD on the FX market and hand it over to the global netter. Note that this might be more than one transaction, especially because the sums are usually larger. Another Indian bank might have a 10M USD inflow, they too will use the FX market, selling 10M USD for INR, probably picking a different time to the first bank. So the rates will most likely differ (apart from the obvious bid/ask difference). The dollar rate they charge you is an average of their rate achieved when buying the USD, plus some commission for their forex brokerage, plus probably some fee for the service (accessing the global netting system isn't free). The fees should be clearly (and separately) stated on your bank statement, and so should be the FX rate. Back to the second example: Obviously since it's a different bank handing over INRs or USDs (or if it was your own bank, they would have internally netted the incoming USDs with the outgoing USDs) the rate will be different, but it's still a once a day transaction. From the INRs you get they will subtract the average FX achieved rate, the FX commissions and again the service fee for the global netting. The fees alone mean that the USD/INR sell rate is different from the buy rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd8b50e0104c813d5f4ea7078fcb107",
"text": "On Credit Cards [I am assuming you have a Visa or Master card], the RBI does not decide the rate. The rate is decided by Visa or Master. The standard Sheet rate for the day is used. Additionally SBI would mark it up by few paise [FX mark-up spread]. This is shown as mark-up fee. The rate of USD Vs INR changes frequently. On large value [say 1 million] trades even a paise off makes a huge difference and hence the rate is constantly changing [going up or down]. The rates offered to individuals are constant through out the day. They change from day to day and can go up for down. Recently in the past 6 months if you read the papers, Rupee has been going down and is at historic low. On a give day there are 2 rates; - Bank Buy Rate, ie the rate at which Bank will BUY USD from you. Say 61. So it will buy 100 USD and give you Rupees 6100. - Bank Sell rate, ie the rate at which Bank will SELL USD to you. Say 62. So if you want 100 USD, you need to give Bank 6200. The difference between this is the profit to bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47981e134fcaadbe72fce166491cb0fa",
"text": "In addition to the SELL rate on the statement transaction day, currency conversion fees of 0 - 3% is applied, depending on the card issuing bank.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b36f4593a562c7419d44757c8d067e94",
"text": "I noticed the buy/sell board table. Where did you notice this. Generally for a pair of currencies, there is Unit associated along with direction. The Unit is generally constant. These are only revised when there is large devaluation of a particular currency. Buying Php for MYR 8.52, Selling MYR 8.98. So in this case the Unit of PHP is 100, so Bank is Buying 100 PHP from you [you are selling PHP] and will give you MYR 8.52. If you now want to buy 100 PHP [so the Bank is selling you], you have to pay MYR 8.98. So you loose MYR 0.46 Why are they selling it way beyond the exchange rate? Why is this? As explained above, they are not. Its still within the range. The quote on internet are average price. This means before going back to Philippines, I can buy a lot of peso that I can buy and exchange it for higher price right? Generally an individual cannot make money by buying in one currency and selling in other. There are specialist who try and find arbitrage between multiple pair of currencies and make money out of it. Its a continuous process, if they start making profit, the market will react and put pressure on a pair and the prices would move to remove the arbitrage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee44afaaeb77f2fed647ae241e8bd562",
"text": "I suggest opening a Credit Card that doesn't charge Foreign currency conversion fees. Here is the list of cards without such a fee, Bankrate's Foreign transaction fee credit card chart",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8655b32a3c6f801bcb480e02ecae10e1",
"text": "\"Check whether you're being charged a \"\"Cash advance\"\" fee with your withdrawals, because it's being withdrawn from your credit card account. If that's happening to you, then having a positive balance on your credit card account will dramatically reduce the fees. Quoting from my answer to a similar question on Travel Stack Exchange: It turns out that even though \"\"Cash advance fee - ATM\"\" has \"\"ATM\"\" in it, it doesn't mean that it's being charged by the ATM you're withdrawing from. It's still being charged by the bank of your home country. And depending on your bank, that fee can be minimized by having a positive balance in your credit card account. This isn't just for cards specially marketed at globehoppers and globeshoppers (mentioned in an answer to a similar question), but even for ordinary credit cards: Help minimise and avoid fees An administrative charge of 2% of the value of the transaction will apply to each cash advance made on your card account, where your account has a negative (debit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it. A minimum charge of $2.50 and a maximum charge of $150 will apply in these circumstances. Where your account has a positive (credit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it, a charge of $2.50 will apply to the transaction. Any such charge will appear on your credit card statement directly below the relevant cash advance. A $2.50 charge if your account is positive, versus $20 if the account is negative? That's a bit of a difference!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f905cfa8cad48d9933b67a3b1b01235e",
"text": "The location that you are purchasing from is not really relevant. If you use either a Visa or MasterCard to make a payment in a foreign currency of any kind then your payment will automatically use Visa/MasterCard's FX platform. Whilst fees can vary between issuers, the fee is generally fixed at 2.5%. There are occasionally credit card issuers who have special deals to remove these fees, but they tend to come and go and availability will depend on your country of residence. The only real way to avoid the fee is to get access to a debit or credit card denominated in the currency you wish to use for your purchase. This is often achievable for USD or EUR, but much harder for smaller currencies. You would have to try contacting a bank in that country to see if they would open an account for you or attempting to purchase a pre-paid credit card online.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a3ace553b8d5770299f9fc3f60b1b86",
"text": "I've done this for many years, and my method has always been to get a bank draft from my Canadian bank and mail it to my UK bank. The bank draft costs $7.50 flat fee and the mail a couple of dollars more. That's obviously quite a lot to pay on $100, so I do this only every six months or so and make the regular payments out of my UK account. It ends up being only a couple of percent in transaction costs, and the exchange rate is the bank rate.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd0807d14ae67ad37d5284c750633bce",
"text": "Typically, withdrawing cash from an ATM once abroad gives you the best exchange rate, but check if your bank imposes ATM withdrawal fees. This works well for all major currencies, such as GBP, Euro, Yen, AUD. I've also withdrawn Croatian kunas, Brazilian reais and Moroccan dirhams without any trouble. In Southeast Asia, it may be a different story. Thai ATMs, for example, reportedly impose a surcharge of about $5.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d51b9616110f5402fe4bb70de5b97b68",
"text": "\"In my experience working at a currency exchange money service business in the US: Flat fees are the \"\"because we can\"\" fee on average. These can be waived on certain dollar values at some banks or MSBs, and sometimes can even be haggled. If you Google EURUSD, as an example, you also get something like $1.19 at 4pm, 9/18/2017. If you look at the actual conversion that you got, you may find your bank hit you with $1.30 or something close to convert from USD to Euro (in other words, you payed 10% more USD per Euro). And, if you sell your Euro directly back, you might find you only make $1.07. This spread is the real \"\"fee\"\" and covers a number of things including risk or liquidity. You'll see that currencies with more volatility or less liquidity have a much wider spread. Some businesses even go as far as to artificially widen the spread for speculators (see IQD, VND, INR, etc.). Typically if you see a 3% surcharge on international ATM or POS transactions, that's the carrier such as Visa or Mastercard taking their cut for processing. Interestingly enough, you also typically get the carrier-set exchange rate overseas when using your card. In other words, your bank has a cash EURUSD of $1.30 but the conversion you get at the ATM is Visa's rate, hence the Visa fee (but it's typically a nicer spread, or it's sometimes the international spot rate depending on the circumstances, due to the overhead of electronic transactions). You also have to consider the ATM charging you a separate fee for it's own operation. In essence, the fees exist to pad every player involved except you. Some cards do you a solid by advertising $0 foreign exchange fees. Unfortunately these cards only insulate you from the processing/flat fees and you may still fall prey to the fee \"\"hidden\"\" in the spread. In the grander scheme of things, currency exchange is a retail operation. They try to make money on every step that requires them to expend a resource. If you pay 10% on a money transaction, this differs actually very little from the mark-up you pay on your groceries, which varies from 3-5% on dry food, to 20% on alcohol such as wine.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "260f08aa3ed67443f642e7942a91ec08",
"text": "It will cost the same no matter what currency you use, unless you have access to a deal with a currency exchange that gives you an especially favourable conversion rate for a particular currency. If the current exchange rates are US$1.70 to the £, CA$1.80 to the £ and HK$12.50 to the £, then £1, US$1.70, CA$1.80 and HK$12.50 are just four different ways of writing the same amount of money. So whether you pay in US$, CA$ or HK$ it's the same amount of money that you're paying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "074fefb0d464c1ed76289e41089e5ff8",
"text": "\"What you have is usually called a pre-paid credit card. You pay some money (Indian Rupees) to the credit card company, and then you can use the card to pay for purchases etc in foreign (non-Indian) currencies upto the remaining balance on the card. If a proposed charge exceeds the remaining balance, the transaction will be declined when you try to use the card. There might be multiple ways that the card is set up, e.g. it might be restricted to charge purchases denominated in US dollars alone, or you might be able to use it anywhere in the world (except India). The balance on the card might be denominated in INR, or in US$, say. In the latter case, the exchange rate at which your INR payment was converted into the $US balance is fixed and agreed to at the time of the original payment: you paid INR 70K (say) and the balance was set to US$ 1000 even though the exchange rate on the open market would have given you a few more US dollars. In the former case with the balance denominated in INR, a charge of US$ 100, say, would be converted to INR at a fixed agreed-upon rate, or at the current exchange rate that the Visa or MasterCard network is using, plus (typically) a 3% fee currency exchange fee, and your balance in INR will decrease accordingly. With all that as prologue, if you made a purchase from Walmart USA and later returned it for a credit, it should increase your credit card balance appropriately. You may be whacked with currency conversion fees along the way depending on how your card is set up, but with a US$-denominated card, a credit of US$100 should increase your card balance by US$100. So, that $US 100 can be spent on something else instead. In short, the card is your \"\"bank\"\" account. You cannot spend more than the remaining balance on the card just like you cannot withdraw more money from your bank account than you have in the account, and you can recharge your card by making more INR payments into it so as to increase the available balance. But it is like a current account in that you are unlikely to earn interest on the balance the way you do with a savings account. So what if you are back in India and have no further use of this card? Can you get your balance back as cash or deposit into your regular bank account? Call the Customer Help line, or read the card agreement you signed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bcdf4cca2c9f6777c2b69ade14f4138",
"text": "Current and past FX rates are available on Visa's website. Note that it may vary by country, so use your local Visa website.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12c783ab58e622f4b75a45d00cc7d18a",
"text": "There is a way I discovered of finding the current exchange rate before committing to buy, go to send payments, put in your own second email, pay 1gbp as the amount and it will give you the exchange rate and fees in your own currency, in my case euro, before you have to click on send payment",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb4d41c48db1ec43b5a542e87f30065",
"text": "I think the one single answer is that the answer depends on the two countries involved and their banks' practices. To find that answer, you need to ask other expats from your country living in France and ask them for their experience. Note that most expats do not know what fees they are paying. For example, in the Philippines, the lowest fee charged still involves waiting 30 days to get your money. Specifically, I opened a US dollar savings account with the minimum of US $500 required (other rules are involved for opening a bank account), deposited a personal check drawn on my US bank account (no fee charged), and waited 30 calendar days to withdraw USD bills. The Philippines bank did not have a branch in the US, but had financial arrangements with US banks. After getting USD dollars in my hand, I walked to a nearby exchange business store (which usually offered a better daily rate than a bank, but a rate between the banks' buy and sell rates) and exchange the dollars for pesos. Note that years ago, banks did not give USD bills, when dollars were scarce in the Philippines. However, this process does not work in Thailand, due to bank rules against private individuals opening a USD account, with exceptions. And there are still fees involved. March 2017",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f00758a8e973c9613c82d04f248c9dd3",
"text": "\"The other option apart from the above which I feel is quite good is \"\"Travel Card\"\" [also called Forex Card] issued in USD. These cards are like prepaid debit cards. They are available from almost quite a few Indian Banks like HDFC / ICICI / UTI. The limit for students is around 100 K USD per year. http://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/cards/prepaid_cards/forexplus_card/pre_forex_elg.htm The card can be reloaded by any amount [i think the minimum is USD 100] by visiting the Branch or certain Forex agents. There loading fee is INR 75. The Fx is typical Card Rate prevailing on the day. In US this card can be used as a credit card for almost everything [I have used this without any hassel]. Avoid using the card for blocking anything [at Hotel for room booking, or initial block at car rentals]. Although its mentioned that there is a withdrawl fees, i was never charged anything for withdrawls. The card comes with an internet based login to monitor account balance and transactions. Any unused funds can be withdrawn in India. The payment will be make in INR.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a7031dbac7278519e2434d9f310e0f52
|
What do I do with a P11D Expenses & Benefits form?
|
[
{
"docid": "d3381ce2d3d30afc976df6a0006e9a85",
"text": "\"The P11D is a record of the total benefits you've received in a tax year that haven't been taxed in another way, a bit like the P60 is a record of the total pay and tax you've paid in a tax year. Note that travel for business purposes shouldn't be taxable, and if that's what's being reported on the P11D you may need to make a claim for tax relief to HMRC to avoid having to pay the tax. I'm not sure whether it's normal for such expenses to be reported there. HMRC will normally collect that tax by adjusting your tax code after the P11D is issued, so that more tax is taken off your future income. So you don't need to do anything, as it'll be handled automatically. As to how you know it's accurate, if you have any doubts you'd need to contact your former employer and ask them to confirm the details. In general you ought to know what benefits you actually received so should at least be able to figure out if the number is plausible. If your \"\"travel\"\" was a flight to the USA, then probably it was. If it was a bus ticket, less so :-) If you fill in a tax return, you'll also have to report the amount there which will increase the tax you owe/reduce your refund. You won't be charged twice even if your tax code also changes, as the tax return accounts for the total amount of tax you've already paid. For travel benefits, the exact treatment in relation to tax/P11Ds is summarised here.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d3aa0e53873e068ee63eb8e1179eae2b",
"text": "\"I would suggest to get an authoritative response from a CPA. In any case it would be for your own benefit to have at least the first couple of years of tax returns prepared by a professional. However, from my own personal experience, in your situation the income should not be regarded as \"\"US income\"\" but rather income in your home country. Thus it should not appear on the US tax forms because you were not resident when you had it, it was given to you by your employer (which is X(Europe), not X(USA)), and you should have paid local taxes in your home country on it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c93f3024d8d4bde48399c1dabe42032b",
"text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24013fc2d8a69a7b3cba05a99e5eb8f",
"text": "When you enter your expected gross income into the worksheet - just enter $360000 and leave everything else as is. That should give you the right numbers. Same for State (form DE-4).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57cb61fd296cae857e0413a84e463426",
"text": "is it possible to file that single form aside from the rest of my return? Turbotax will generate all the forms necessary to file your return. I recommend you access these forms and file them manually. According to the IRS in order to report capital gains and losses you need to fill out Form 8949 and summarize them on Form 1040 D. Add these two forms to the stack that turbotax generates. Add the total capital gains to line 13 of the Form 1040 which turbotax generated, and adjust the totals on the form accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7e3d7a58663bf7892905e74ddb6346a",
"text": "\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39ac168cb11ea51d8e30d4aa282269e0",
"text": "Well you've got to think about the process, but first make sure the thing you want to pay for is actually a qualified dependent care expense. Here is a list of eligible expenses from a national FSA administrator. This process will tie up your money for some amount of time. Your deduction will come out like clockwork. But there is a time-delay of potentially months between your deduction and receipt of a reimbursement. Dependent care plans are money-in money-out. You can only file a reimbursement on funds that have actually been contributed, which is different than a medical FSA. Additionally, you can only file a claim on expenses that have actually been incurred. Dependent care FSA elections can be changed through the year on an as needed basis. This would add an administrivia burden to the person running your payroll, and if there is a payroll vendor in place, likely an actual cost. The administrator in this situation would likely be the company. In the formalities of employee benefits there must always be a named administrator. If your employer currently offers no benefits you should press healthcare first. Paying healthcare premiums pretax would likely save you more money and be less administration than this. Additionally, if your employer is paying for or reimbursing you for your individual health insurance that's currently illegal under the ACA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a00d5959b32ca0bc12b319ae14ed2da",
"text": "IRS pub 521 has all the information you need. Expenses reimbursed. If you are reimbursed for your expenses and you use the cash method of accounting, you can deduct your expenses either in the year you paid them or in the year you received the reimbursement. If you use the cash method of accounting, you can choose to deduct the expenses in the year you are reimbursed even though you paid the expenses in a different year. See Choosing when to deduct, next. If you deduct your expenses and you receive the reimbursement in a later year, you must include the reimbursement in your income on Form 1040, line 21 This is not unusual. Anybody who moves near the end of the year can have this problem. The 39 week time test also can be an issue that span over 2 tax years. I would take the deduction for the expenses as soon a I could, and then count the income in the later year if they pay me back. IF they do so before April 15th, then I would put them on the same tax form to make things easier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f20fdd823286eba26d5f938c45710cd2",
"text": "Talk to a tax professional. The IRS really doesn't like the deduction, and it's a concept (like independent contractors) that is often not done properly. You need to, at a minimum, have records, including timestamped photographs, proving that: Remember, documentation is key, and must be filed and accessible for a number of years. Poor record keeping will cost you dearly, and the cost of keeping those records is something that you need to weigh against the benefit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bdd2e14dc990aa712c3092fbe817087",
"text": "I received a $2,000 bonus... Gross Income is income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) “compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.” Adjusted Gross Income is defined as gross income minus adjustments to income. My question is, must I still report this money on my tax return and if so, how? Yes, and it would be on line 21 of your 1040 with supporting documentation. Are these legal fees deductible as an expense, and where would I list them? Yes, you would aggregate your deductible expenses and place these on your Schedule A. Instructions here. Good Luck. Edit: As Ben Miller pointed out in the comments, the deduction would be placed in either line 23 or 28 depending on the nature of the attorney (investment related or not).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91ffa5ed8478fc188d5928f275b34075",
"text": "What happened is that they do not track (and report) your original cost basis for 1099-B purposes. That is because it is an RSU. Instead, they just reported gross proceeds ($5200) and $0 for everything else. On your Schedule D you adjust the basis to the correct one, and as a comment you add that it was reported on W2 of the previous year. You then report the correct $1200 gain. You keep the documentation you have to back this up in case of questions (which shouldn't happen, since it will match what was indeed reported on your W2).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e316d41336ca3bda6eb126bcc4115790",
"text": "\"Can I use the foreign earned income exclusion in my situation? Only partially, since the days you spent in the US should be excluded. You'll have to prorate your exclusion limit, and only apply it to the income earned while not in the US. If not, how should I go about this to avoid being doubly taxed for 2014? The amounts you cannot exclude are taxable in the US, and you can use a portion of your Norwegian tax to offset the US tax liability. Use form 1116 for that. Form 1116 with form 2555 on the same return will require some arithmetic exercises, but there are worksheets for that in the instructions. In addition, US-Norwegian treaty may come into play, so check that out. It may help you reduce the tax liability in the US or claim credit on the US taxes in Norway. It seems that Norway has a bilateral tax treaty with the US, that, if I'm reading it correctly, seems to indicate that \"\"visiting researchers to universities\"\" (which really seems like I would qualify as) should not be taxed by either country for the duration of their stay. The relevant portion of the treaty is Article 16. Article 16(2)(b) allows you $5000 exemption for up to a year stay in the US for your salary from the Norwegian school. You will still be taxed in Norway. To claim the treaty benefit you need to attach form 8833 to your tax return, and deduct the appropriate amount on line 21 of your form 1040. However, since you're a US citizen, that article doesn't apply to you (See the \"\"savings clause\"\" in the Article 22). I didn't even give a thought to state taxes; those should only apply to income sourced from the state I lived in, right (AKA $0)? I don't know what State you were in, so hard to say, but yes - the State you were in is the one to tax you. Note that the tax treaty between Norway and the US is between Norway and the Federal government, and doesn't apply to States. So the income you earned while in the US will be taxable by the State you were at, and you'll need to file a \"\"non-resident\"\" return there (if that State has income taxes - not all do).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd10d90ffdb55b8ff054948c6a6d2926",
"text": "\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac8916af592d24f229674bf1f89c93c2",
"text": "If this is something you plan to continue doing it would make sense to create it as it's own business entity and then to get non-profit status eg: 501c3. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you have to think of it as YOU receiving the money as a sole proprietor - and file a couple more tax forms at the end of the year. I think it's a Schedule C. So essentially if you bring in $10,000, then you spend that $10,000 as legit business expenses for your venture your schedule C would show no profit and wouldn't pay taxes on it. BUT, you do have to file that form. Operating this way could have legal implications should something happen and you get sued. Having the proper business entity setup could help in that situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e01fae496d2dff9ca15ea734ad1f05d",
"text": "There is a tax advantage only for medical expenses exceeding 10% of your adjusted gross income (7.5% if over age 65). This limit means only a very few people can take advantage of the deduction. The expenses would be entered on Schedule A (itemized deductions) of form 1040. You don't have to send in the supporting documentation, but you have to keep it in your records to present if audited. Yes, a copay qualifies as an expense, but needs supporting documentation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eb73a2ca9245aa95108c276f11d1f16",
"text": "In a nutshell, throwing your taxable income in the trash does not remove it from your taxable income; you still have to report in your tax filing, and pay taxes as needed. Especially as you could at any time request your employer to write you a replacement check. I would expect them to start charging a fee for reprinting if you really annoy them by doing it dozens of times. If you want to avoid taxes on it, donate it to a deductible 501(c)3 organization; then it becomes neutral to your taxes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a3a36ab2711d3a7d97e618bb809d4d96
|
How do 'payday money' stores fund their 'buy now, pay later' loans?
|
[
{
"docid": "a5904cc24faa878de040793a1e14075b",
"text": "Payday loan companies basically are banks (although they are incredibly terrible ones). Banks make money in two ways: (1) They charge fees for services they provide (bank account fees, etc.); and (2) The interest rate differential: They borrow money from individuals and corporations (your savings account is essentially money you are loaning to the bank) for a small % paid to individuals, and then lend that money back to other people for a higher %. ie: You might earn 0.5% on your savings account, but then the bank takes that money and lends it to your neighbor for 2.5% as part of their mortgage. Payday loan companies make money in one way: They charge an enormous markup on money lent out to other people. The rates in some cases are so high (annualized interest rates of >1000% are not uncommon in countries without full regulation of this industry), that it barely matters where they get money from. They might get money from investors [who bought shares in the company, giving the company initial cash in the hope that they give dividends down the road], they might get money from other 'real' banks [who lend money just like they would lend money to any other business, with a regular interest rate], or they might have many from many other sources. They might even issue their debt publically, so that individuals could buy bonds from the company and receive a small amount of interest every year. The point is that the rates of return on the money leant by payday loan companies are so high, that the cost of where the money comes from is not terribly relevant.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6b722f7ab18aa74ea0ca2f4cbd589dfb",
"text": "Of course its possible. Under what terms and with what fees depends on your bank/country regulations, but generally speaking - loaning is the major source of income for banks, especially short-term account overdrafts (which is essentially a loan, usually at a high rate). In the US you can (now, since the new regulations kicked in) instruct the bank not to pay checks/decline debit card purchases if you don't have sufficient funds on the account. Otherwise you can instruct them to pay (at their discretion) to avoid bouncing checks, and accept NSF fees (usually pretty high). Some banks provide overdraft lines of credit (then you won't have NSF fees, and will just pay interest when tapping into that line), others provide option to automatically withdraw the missing amount from a linked account (checking or credit card).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2e8aa4caff5531411d25c10c83ca508",
"text": "Basically isn't this like if they loaned a bank 400b with 401b due tomorrow, and then the bank took the same loan the next day? Gross exaggeration I know, but I just want to make sure that is the way this works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b10a6a9f11ddd5e980624a5df4c0c0f8",
"text": "Car dealers as well as boat dealers, RV dealers, maybe farm vehicle dealers and other asset types make deals with banks and finance companies to they can make loans to buyers. They may be paying the interest to the finance companies so they can offer a 0% loan to the retail customer for all or part of the loan term. Neither the finance company nor the dealer wants to make such loans to people who are likely to default. Such customers will not be offered this kind of financing. But remember too that these loans are secured by the asset - the car - which is also insured. But the dealer or the finance company holds that asset as collateral that they can seize to repay the loan. So the finance company gets paid off and the dealer keeps the profit he made selling the car. So these loans are designed to ensure the dealer nor the finance company looses much. These are called asset finance loans because there is always an asset (the car) to use as collateral.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "588d7deabaf5f7eb299ccaad1bf4760c",
"text": "\"When is the best time to pay? At the end of each year? If you save $1,000 each month at 1% so as to pay $12,000 at EOY on a 4.75% loan, you've lost \"\"4.75% - 1% = 3.75%\"\" over that year. (And that's presuming you put the money in a \"\"high yield\"\" online savings account.) Thus, the best time to pay is as soon as you have the money. EDIT: This all assumes that you have an emergency fund (more than the bare minimum $1K), zero other debt with a higher rate than 4.75% and that you are getting the full company match from 401(k).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47b0e5018962cd5b091dffb879e6d7f5",
"text": "There is a strange puzzle today where savings account interest rates are not rising in-line with the Federal Funds rate. Either customers are apathetic to their alternative uses of cash, or banks have some-how formed a cartel to keep their cost of funding low. I'm leaning towards the former since bank customers today likely value readily accessible cash more than the interest rate they could earn by investing in money market mutual funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f71e16876c49a2516f62da64a0d1f7c0",
"text": "\"It's worth pointing out that most \"\"cash\"\" deals are actually debt financed, at least in part. A quick review of the 8K tells us they plan on debt financing the entire transaction with some senior notes and not use any of the 15B on their BS. This is fairly typical these days because debt is cheaper then the foregone interest on cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11cbec902d575e4489084f6cde2ddb91",
"text": "\"Most folks would loan out money for the purpose of being re-loaned. Depositing money in the bank, is loaning the bank money who will re-loan it. Buying bond based mutual funds is another way that it could be viewed that people are loaning money for the purpose of the money being re-loaned. The reason why banks always have money available for withdrawal, is because of the reserve. Fractional reserve banking in its simplest explanation, is that banks are allowed to take deposits and loan them out so long as they keep a set reserve. If the reserve rate is 10% (it's really much lower), and somebody deposits $100, then the bank is allowed to loan out $90, keeping $10 as a reserve. Now even with a reserve, a bank does run some risk of the deposits being withdrawn faster than the loans are paid back, this is called a run. What protects banks most from this, is that deposits, withdrawals, loans, and loan repayments, all happen at a fairly steady and predictable rate (short term), so banks are able to judge how many loans they should give out. Even when banks do see their reserve depleting, they have options. The first and most common, is simply getting a loan from another bank. The rule with the reserve, is that banks need to meet it at the end of the day, so banks will loan each other money overnight for the purpose of making up for the slight fluctuations that occur in a normal business day. If you have ever heard the Fed talking about the \"\"overnight rate\"\" they are talking about the rate banks loan each other money for the night. Another common way for banks to make up for a deficit in deposits, in a longer term solution,is to sell assets. Fairly rare for a bank to sell actual physical assets, but the loans they hold are assets, and they can sell them to other banks. Most banks will also hold some bonds that are available to sell. The major functions that allow a bank to be profitable would still apply to the OP's idea. The only real difference would be that commercial banks have direct access to the central banks, and the OP's idea would need to have a commercial bank to act as the middle man between the central bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37f1468d33edbdf2cc73c45e8868ae69",
"text": "\"Actually in Finland on some bank + debit/credit card + online retailer combinations you type in your card details as you normally do, but after clicking \"\"Buy\"\" you get directed to your own bank's website which asks you to authenticate yourself with online banking credentials. It also displays the amount of money and to which account it is being paid to. After authentication you get directed back to the retailer's website. Cannot say why banks in US haven't implemented this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13579414bd19097f500ef210e2dfd057",
"text": "\"(Disclosure - PeerStreet was at FinCon, a financial blogger conference I attended last month. I had the chance to briefly meet a couple people from this company. Also, I recognize a number of the names of their financial backers. This doesn't guarantee anything, of course, except the people behind the scenes are no slackers.) The same way Prosper and Lending Club have created a market for personal loans, this is a company that offers real estate loans. The \"\"too good to be true\"\" aspect is what I'll try to address. I've disclosed in other answers that I have my Real Estate license. Earlier this year, I sold a house that was financed with a \"\"Hard Money\"\" loan. Not a bank, but a group of investors. They charged the buyer 10%. Let me state - I represented the seller, and when I found out the terms of the loan, it would have been a breach of my own moral and legal responsibility to her to do anything to kill the deal. I felt sick for days after that sale. There are many people with little credit history who are hard workers and have saved their 20% down. For PeerStreet, 25%. The same way there's a business, local to my area, that offered a 10% loan, PeerStreet is doing something similar but in a 'crowd sourced' way. It seems to me that since they show the duration as only 6-24 months, the buyer typically manages to refinance during that time. I'm guessing that these may be people who are selling their house, but have bad timing, i.e. they need to first close on the sale to qualify to buy the new home. Or simply need the time to get their regular loan approved. (As a final side note - I recalled the 10% story in a social setting, and more than one person responded they'd have been happy to invest their money at 6%. I could have saved the buyer 4% and gotten someone else nearly 6% more than they get on their cash.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a78128b1da5143d99ed854a17355031",
"text": "They also tranche their loans just like the bonds in the housing crisis, which freaked me the fuck out when I heard it. Asked one of the main Sofi guys presenting at an event (think he works with the 4 founders about his answer and he basically just said the quality of the loans going in will keep them save. It seemed like a semi complete answer, one that I would never know unless I got an inside look at how rigid their loan process is and if it holds up when they are having a low month of inflows.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4571505cd5e76a598b1090e109add091",
"text": "\"A lot of credit card companies these days uses what they call \"\"daily interest\"\" where they charge the interest rate for the number of days till you pay off what you spent. This allows them to make more money than the \"\"period billing\"\". The idea of credit, theoretically, is that there isn't really a day when you can borrow without paying interest - in theory\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "749eaaf9fc54104235fb924c6e220d06",
"text": "The short term loan that accept any credit score is really merchant cash advance. They call it loan because clients do have options to pay as direct deposit but most of the times they would make clients switch to their credit card terminals so they can get percentage of daily sales as payment as well as percentage from their partner credit card company. And that kind of payment (percentage of daily credit card sales) is merchant cash advance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6a21aae1590e3bc1adc26bba980101b",
"text": "\"Now store the money in -- okay here, think about a realistic worst case scenario. Not zombie attack or meteor mega-strike, but the kinds in which you are not entirely helpless: job loss stacked on top of the worst recession since the Great Depression, along with credit drying up so you can't just borrow your way through the hard times. Store the money in an account and investment which is relatively liquid, meaning you could extract cash value from it fairly easily in a worst case scneario. Safe -- essentially impossible to lose significant value in a worst case scenario. (or, you only count the part of its value that's sure to be there in a worst case.) If you're much too cool for an emergency fund, then sorry to waste your valuable time! For the rest of us, it's a planning tool. Even dot-coms do this: it's called a \"\"burn-rate\"\" and they know exactly how many more weeks their VC can fund operations. Of course in practicality, it may not go to X months of routine expenses. Most of it may get burned up in month 2 on a new transmission. You can't really predict this stuff, the \"\"X month\"\" paradigm is just an arm-wave. For the financially uneducated, it's also a training tool. In the US, school does not provide financial education. Most people get financial habits from their parents, and like most family lessons, they are deeply emotionally wired, even if they are unconscious of that fact. For instance, some people don't ask for the salaries they deserve, and spend lavishly until the checkbook is zero - they literally push money away. Suffice it to say, it's a challenge to get some people to even realize that savings is a thing, when they have never in their whole lives been able to hold onto more than $20 for more than a week. The concept of an emergency fund is a sellable way to break through that \"\"I can't save\"\" mental-block. So I can see where you might think the emergency fund is greasy kidstuff. Fair. But it's not just that, it's also a very practical planning tool.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70e04ae623489ace987557576c29b943",
"text": "Banks can't simply make loans in the void. This is how the cash flow works, generally: 1. Depositers *add* cash into the bank. The Bank now has cash. 10% of that cash is held on *reserve* per law. This cash is held on the balance sheet as an *asset* (cash) *and a liability* (demand deposits). 2. Someone requests a loan. The loan is funded from the non-reserved cash of these deposits. This results in a lessening of an asset (cash), and the creation of a new asset (loan). 3. Traditionally, as the debtor pays back the loan, the interest is distributed in some sort of split between the bank and the depositors. This means cash in from the loan and interest, and a liability (deposits) also go up. 4. Alternatively, while the above still happens, the bank can *securitize* the loan and sell that to investors. Investors then get access to the loan and its income, and the bank collects a fee. However, this means more cash on hand for the bank to originate additional loans without going near the reserve requirement. If a bank extends too many loans and its reserve is threatened, it must borrow either from the fed or from other banks. These loans must be paid back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25acfc12627b8bc956a648b3eb673eb5",
"text": "So this method makes sense and is reasonable and possible. The money multiplier effect ends up capped by the fact that the bank can only lend a percent of its 'cash'. My issue understanding this is I've been told that banks actually don't hold 10% of the cash and lend the other 90% but instead hold the full 100% in cash and lend 900%. Is this accurate? The issue I see with it is that it becomes exponential growth that is uncapped. If the bank lends 900%, it has created this money from nothing, which by itself isn't different that the bank loaning 90% and keeping 10%. The issue comes because the next bank who gets that money deposited will treat that amount as cash as well, so they loan 900% of the 900%. And so on and so forth. How does the system prevent this from happening?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0dbc6bfa8df28f346e7303c970d6d851
|
Can an unmarried couple buy a home together with only one person on the mortgage?
|
[
{
"docid": "239eefd27af2f242572ffc8aa02b5f83",
"text": "It is highly unlikely that this would be approved by a mortgage underwriter. When the bank gives a loan with a security interest in a property (a lien), they are protected - if the borrower does not repay the loan, the property can be foreclosed on and sold, and the lender is made whole for the amount of the loan that was not repaid. When two parties are listed on the deed, then each owns an UNDIVIDED 50% share in the property. If only one party has pledged the property as surety against the loan, then in effect only 50% of the property is forecloseable. This means that the bank is unable to recoup its loss. For a (fictional, highly simplified) concrete example, suppose that the house is worth $100,000 and Adam and Zoe are listed on the deed, but Adam is the borrower for a $100,000 mortgage. Adam owes $100,000 and has an asset worth $50,000 (which he has pledged as security for the loan), while Zoe owes nothing and has an asset worth $50,000 (which is entirely unencumbered). If Adam does not pay the mortgage, the bank would only be able to foreclose on his $50,000 half of the property, leaving them exposed to great risk. There are other legal and financial reasons, but overall I think you'll find it very difficult to locate a lender who is willing to take that kind of risk. It's very complicated and there is absolutely no up-side. Also - speaking from experience (from which I was protected because of the bank's underwriting rules) and echoing the advice offered by others on this site: don't bother trying. Commingling assets without a contract (either implicit by marriage or explicit by, well a contract) is going to get you in trouble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "897b8449942ba103ae50e8cf868afa70",
"text": "\"I will expand on Bacon's comment. When you are married, and you acquire any kind of property, you automatically get a legal agreement. In most states that property is owned jointly and while there are exceptions that is the case most of the time. When you are unmarried, there is no such assumption of joint acquisition. While words might be said differently between the two parties, if there is nothing written down and signed then courts will almost always assume that only one party owns the property. Now unmarried people go into business all the time, but they do so by creating legally binding agreements that cover contingencies. If you two do proceed with this plan, it is necessary to create those documents with the help of a lawyer. Although expensive paying for this protection is a small price in relation to what will probably be one of the largest purchases in your lives. However, I do not recommend this. If Clayton can and wants to buy a home he should. Emma can rent from Clayton. That rent could any amount the two agree on, including zero. If the two do get married, well then Emma will end up owning any equity after that date. If they stay together until death, it is likely that she (or her heirs) will own half of it anyway. Also if this house is sold, the equity pass into larger house they buy after marriage, then that will be owned jointly. If they do break up, the break up is clean and neat. Presumably she would have paid rent anyway, so nothing is lost. Many people run into trouble having to sell at a bad time in a relationship that coincides with a weak housing market. In that case, both parties lose. So much like Bacon's advice I would not buy jointly. There is no upside, and you avoid a lot of downside. Don't play \"\"house\"\" by buying a home jointly when you are unmarried.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5e93075e5b363f36d9be5f797b3e6b3",
"text": "In this case can the title of the home still be held by both? Yes, it is possible to have additional people on title that are not on the mortgage. Would the lender (bank) have any reservations about this since a party not on the mortgage has ownership of the property? Possibly, but there is a very simple way to avoid this. Clayton could simply purchase the home himself, and add Emma to the title after closing by recording a quitclaim deed. The lender can't stop that, and from their point of view it's actually better, since they have two people to go after in the case of default. (But despite it being better they often make it difficult to purchase Tip, when you have an attorney draft the quitclaim document, have them draft the reverse document too. (Emma relinquishing the property back to Clayton.) There is usually no extra charge for this and then you have it if you need it. For example, you may need to file the reverse forms if you want to refinance. As a side note, I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's and Pete B.'s in recommending that Clayton and Emma do not do this. Once they are married the property will either be automatically jointly owned, or a spouse can be added to the title easily, and until they are married there are no pros but many cons to doing this. Reasons not to do it: As a side note, in a comment it was proposed: ...suppose Clayton loves Emma so much that he wants her name to be on the house... I understand the desire to do this from an emotional point of view, but realize this does not make sense from a financial point of view.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "024f190b764183dc722c34c4360e0f90",
"text": "The mortgage and title of the house would be under both your names equally. When I applied for a mortgage with my girlfriend, I was the primary applicant because of my credit score and she was the secondary because of her income (she makes more). When all was said and done, it was explained to us that the mortgage was ours equally and so was the house, and that I didn't hold more ownership than her over either. We were approved quickly and hassle free. This is our first house too. This is in Florida.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbf8d5a2db71f056ab85223ef6589783",
"text": "I did that. What is allowed changes over time, though — leading up to the crisis, lenders would approve at the flimsiest evidence. In particular, my SO had only been in the country a couple years and was at a sweet spot where lack of history was no longer counting against her. Running the numbers, the mortgage was a fraction of a percent cheaper in her name than in mine. Even though she used a “stated income” (self reported, not backed by job history) of the household, not just herself. The title was in her name, and would have cost money to have mine added later so we didn’t. This was in Texas, which is a “community property” state so after marriage for sure everything is “ours”.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce55e9bf0dbb378da0165acec00aef8",
"text": "It's not typically possible for someone to jointly own the house, who is not also jointly liable for the mortgage. This doesn't matter however, because it is possible for two people to get a mortgage together, where only one person's income is assessed by the lender. If that person could get a mortgage of that amount on their own, then the couple should also be able to get the same mortgage. Source: My wife and I got a mortgage like this. She is self-employed, rather than meet the very high requirements for proving her self-employment income, we simply said that we only wanted my income to be taken into consideration.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1f4b4fa488a4712895fd0f96f48d5f0",
"text": "It depends on the bank - In some cases(mine included :) ) the bank allowed for this but Emma had to sign on a document waiving the rights for the house in case the bank needs to liquidate assets in to recover their mortgage in case of delays or non-payment of dues in time. This had to be signed after taking independent legal advice from a legal adviser.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c2838624733017e3b4fd0b74a966f5d",
"text": "There is no issue whatsoever, getting a mortgage this way as an unmarried couple. This is very similar to what I did while my wife and I were engaged. We we're on the title as joint tenants. I would expect them to have her as a signee to the mortgage. She won't be able to claim 50% ownership and make things hard on the lender. The title will be contingent on the mortgage being paid. What will be harder is if you guys decide to split. It's not at all uncommon for unmarried couples to buy a house together. Find a broker and get their advice.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b239ecbe22ac4293f7f0df722ed82b8e",
"text": "You cannot deduct. Even if you could, unless you also hold the mortgage, it's unlikely that you would have sufficient deductions to exceed the standard deduction for a married couple.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "21f52f29dbe899c34e4170287fea73f2",
"text": "It is possible. You'll have to call the bank and ask what documentation is required, I'm pretty sure they'll want notarized authorization by all partners, at least.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "68922f8b7da11e444b92f686b6ced412",
"text": "Unlike others who have answered the question - I have done this. Here is my experience - your mileage and friendship may vary: I bought a condo years ago with a longtime childhood friend. We did it for all the reasons you mentioned - sick of renting and not building equity, were both young, single professionals who had the money. The market crashed we have both since married and moved on to own other properties with our spouses. Now we rent out the condo as selling in the current market is not doable.. It's not an ideal situation but that is because of the real estate market - not who I bought with. You need to discuss very openly all of the following scenarios, as well as others I can't think of right now I am sure: If you aren't both 100% in sync with these questions then do not do it. I never understand why some people would buy with a girlfriend/boyfriend but not a good personal friend. You're more likely to have a falling out with your significant other then a long time close friend. My advice, have honest, open conversations, about all possible scenarios. If you feel necessary put somethings down into some sort of legal agreement - with us it was not, and still isn't necessary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e807732a034e0d32a4c0fe25c7b8cd02",
"text": "If someone owns a house that is not paid off...can someone buy it by taking another mortgage? Yes, but I'm not sure why you think the buyer would need to take another mortgage to buy it. If someone sells their home for X dollars, then the buyer needs X dollars to buy the house. How they get that money (use cash, take out a mortgage) is up to them. During the closing process, a portion of the funds generated from the sale are diverted to pay off the seller's loan and any leftover funds after closing are pocketed by the seller. What kind of offer would be most sensible? I assume that in this case the current owner of the house would want to make a profit. The amount that the house is sold for is determined by the market value of their home, not by the size of the mortgage they have left to pay off. You make the same offer whether they own their home or have a mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "419c9242f195bf26a718bf4e307dc73d",
"text": "You are thinking about this very well. With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract. What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance? If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person. (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one. The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own. If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage. Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5c182f9a317adac4162135e9842a282",
"text": "i would recommend that you establish a landlord/tenant relationship instead of joint ownership (ie 100% ownership stake for one of you vs 0% for the other). it is much cleaner and simpler. basically, one of you can propose a monthly rent amount and the other one can chose to be either renter or landlord. alternatively, you can both write down a secret rental price offer assuming you are the landlord, then pick the landlord who wrote down the smaller rental price. if neither of you can afford the down payment, then you can consider the renter's contribution an unsecured loan (at an agreed interest rate and payment schedule). if you must have both names on the financing, then i would recommend you sell the property (or refinance under a single name) as quickly as possible when the relationship ends (if not before), pay the renter back any remaining balance on the loan and leave the landlord with the resulting equity (or debt). in any case, if you expect the unsecured loan to outlive your relationship, then you are either buying a house you can't afford, or partnering on it with someone you shouldn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "533849b422ef3b33e57bd133c162eba5",
"text": "\"With regard to worries about ownership: I'll point you towards this - The Cohabitants Rights Bill currently in First Reading at the House of Lords. Without a date for even the second reading yet. In short the Bill is attempting to redress is the lack of rights when a non-married relationship ends when compared to married relationships; that is that one of the \"\"cohabitants\"\" can end up with basically nothing that they don't have their name on. So currently you're in the clear and (Part 2) Section 6.2.a says the Bill cannot be used retroactively against you if your relationship is over before it becomes law (I expect with Brexit etc, this Bill isn't a high priority - it's been a year since the first reading). Section 6.2.a: This Part does not apply to former cohabitants where the former cohabitants have ceased living together as a couple before the commencement date; However, if you're still together if/when this Bill becomes Law then basically all of (Part 1) Section 2 may be relevant as it notes the conditions you will fall into this bill: Section 2.1.a: live together as a couple and Section 2.2.d: have lived together as a couple for a continuous period of three years or more. and the \"\"have lived together\"\" at that point counts from the start of your cohabitation, not the start of the Bill being law: Section 2.4.a: For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), in determining the length of the continuous period during which two people have lived together as a couple - any period of the relationship that fell before the commencement date (of the Bill) is to be taken into account If you have kids at some point, you'd also fall under 2.2.a through 2.2.c too. After that, the financial parity decided upon by the court depends on a whole bunch of conditions as outlined in the Bill, but Section 8.1.b is pretty clear: Section 8.1.b: (b)the court is satisfied either— (i)that the respondent has retained a benefit; or (ii)40that the applicant has an economic disadvantage, as a result of qualifying contributions the applicant has made I'm not qualified to say whether your partner helping to pay off your mortgage in lieu of paying rent herself would count as just paying rent or giving you an economic benefit. Sections 12, 13, and 14 discuss opt-outs, also worth a read. The a major disclaimer here in that Bills at this early stage have the potential to be modified, scrapped and/or replaced making this info incorrect. As an additional read, here's an FT article from Feb 2016 discussing this lack of rights of a cohabitant which should alleviate any current concerns.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd89b818d5702284369797b5fbfb8462",
"text": "A simple and low-interest loan is probably the least likely to cause acrimony, aside from a direct gift. You seem to be describing an equity stake in their house, where some portion of the appreciation in value accrues to you (relative to your initial investment). An equity stake in their house probably doesn't make much sense. You sound as though you're not going to do any of the work aside from the contribution of money. Equity might make sense as a way to reward you for efforts, such as home design or renovation, that increase the value of the home. You probably don't want to be in a position where you are together improving the property and your payback only comes when she sells for more money. What if you have different ideas of how to do it? She has to live there and may want improvements for her needs rather than for buyers. What if she asks you to pay for a portion of the improvement costs or resents you not offering? What if she doesn't want to sell for some reason, so your money is locked up with her family choices? Renovations can often be stressful, so these decisions may be made at difficult times. Either a gift or a low-interest family loan may be simpler for your needs. You can just set the loan terms you want, say payoff over 10 years or a deferred payment schedule. If she gets in trouble, you could perhaps delay or forgive payments. I don't know the UK tax consequences of a loan of this nature, if any. As a general proposition, it's best to set clear and simple expectations at the beginning, and avoid agreements that require multiple decisions to be made consensually in the future, possibly during a time of stress.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d298504aedaf9c53964353fee7c3c41",
"text": "\"Personally I would advise only buying what you can afford without borrowing money, even if it means living in a tent. Financially, that is the best move. If you are determined to borrow money to buy a house, the person with income should buy it as sole owner. Split ownership will create a nightmare if any problems develop in the relationship. Split ownership has the advantage that it doubles the tax-free appreciation deduction from $250,000 to $500,000, but in your case my sense is that that is not a sufficient reason to risk dual ownership. Do not charge your \"\"partner\"\" rent. That is crazy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ca0c78419f78426e0ab28fd31691ec3",
"text": "Congrats! Make sure you nail down NOW what happens to the house should you eventually separate. I know lots of unmarried couples who have stayed together for decades and look likely to do so for life; I've also seen some marriages break up that I wouldn't have expected to. Better to have this discussion NOW. Beyond that: Main immediate implications are that you have new costs (taxes, utilities, maintenance) and new tax issues (mortgage interest and property tax deductability) and you're going to have to figure out how to allocate those between you (if there is a between; not sure whether unmarried couples can file jointly these days).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "928f578d51d5e2b352fe5022b90e524e",
"text": "If they own the old house outright, they can mortgage it to you. In many jurisdictions this relieves you of the obligation to chase for payment, and of any worry that you won't get paid, because a transfer of ownership to the new owner cannot be registered until any charge against a property (ie. a mortgage) has been discharged. The cost of to your friends of setting up the mortgage will be less than the opulent interest they are offering you, and you will both have peace of mind. Even if the sale of the old house falls through, you will still be its mortgagee and still assured of repayment on any future sale (or even inheritance). Complications arise if the first property is mortgaged. Although second mortgages are possible (and rank behind first mortgages in priority of repayment) the first mortgagee generally has a veto on the creation of second mortgages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba18ba31775842e53398358765bef09d",
"text": "Construction loans have an entirely set of rules and factors than mortgages and that's hard to reconcile into one instrument. Also, I'm guessing the bank would be a bit shy about giving a commitment to a home loan before they have any information about how the construction process is going. There would have to be a ton of contingencies put into mortgage and they probably can't account for everything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ea0143701d6106f318e08c15c42fa960
|
Why would a person not want to purchase a Personal Liability (Umbrella) insurance policy?
|
[
{
"docid": "619411647736891896ac3c26e0bed10c",
"text": "\"This article has a section titled \"\"Do you need an umbrella policy to cover your personal liability risks?\"\" that says: If you have young children, for example, you might need a policy because they have lots of friends. These little tikes might get into some mischief and hurt themselves at your home. If so, you’re at risk of being sued. Do you have people over often? Do you drive like a maniac or a Parisian? Do you have firearms on your premises? Do you have gardeners and housekeepers on the grounds? All these are reasons why you might want to own an umbrella policy. Although many people in the US are homeowners, parents, drivers, etc., not everyone falls into these categories. For some people, as low as the premiums for such a policy might be, the expected cost outweighs the expected benefit. The cost of a lawsuit may be extremely high, but someone may feel that the chance of a lawsuit being filed against them is low enough to be safely ignored and not worth insuring against. I'm probably not a great example, but I'll use my own situation anyway. Even though a liability policy probably wouldn't cost me too much, I'm almost certain that I wouldn't derive any benefit from it. I live alone without children (or firearms, pet tigers, gardeners, etc.) in a 520 sq. ft. apartment, so the probability that something bad would happen to someone on the small bit of property that I rent and that they would file a sizable lawsuit against me is small enough that I choose to ignore it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1837651d08056accb28bde3581e2eb92",
"text": "\"The two questions inherent in any decision to purchase an insurance plan is, \"\"how likely am I to need it?\"\", and \"\"what's the worst case scenario if I don't have it?\"\". The actuary that works for the insurance company is asking these same questions from the other end (with the second question thus being \"\"what would we be expected to have to pay out for a claim\"\"), using a lot of data about you and people like you to arrive at an answer. It really boils down to little more than a bet between you and the insurance company, and like any casino, the insurer has a house edge. The question is whether you think you'll beat that edge; if you're more likely than the insurer thinks you are to have to file a claim, then additional insurance is a good bet. So, the reasons you might decide against getting umbrella insurance include: Your everyday liability is low - Most people don't live in an environment where the \"\"normal\"\" insurance they carry won't pay for their occasional mistakes or acts of God. The scariest one for most is a car accident, but when you think of all the mistakes that have to be made by both sides in order for you to burn through the average policy's liability limits and still be ruined for life, you start feeling better. For instance, in Texas, minimum insurance coverage levels are 50/100/50; assuming neither party is hurt but the car is a total loss, your insurer will pay the fair market value of the car up to $50,000. That's a really nice car, to have a curbside value of 50 grand; remember that most cars take an initial hit of up to 25% of their sticker value and a first year depreciation of up to 50%. That 50 grand would cover an $80k Porsche 911 or top-end Lexus ES, and the owner of that car, in the U.S. at least, cannot sue to recover replacement value; his damages are only the fair market value of the car (plus medical, lost wages, etc, which are covered under your two personal injury liability buckets). If that's a problem, it's the other guy's job to buy his own supplemental insurance, such as gap insurance which covers the remaining payoff balance of a loan or lease above total loss value. Beyond that level, up into the supercars like the Bentleys, Ferraris, A-Ms, Rollses, Bugattis etc, the drivers of these cars know full well that they will never get the blue book value of the car from you or your insurer, and take steps to protect their investment. The guys who sell these cars also know this, and so they don't sell these cars outright; they require buyers to sign \"\"ownership contracts\"\", and one of the stipulations of such a contract is that the buyer must maintain a gold-plated insurance policy on the car. That's usually not the only stipulation; The total yearly cost to own a Bugatti Veyron, according to some estimates, is around $300,000, of which insurance is only 10%; the other 90% is obligatory routine maintenance including a $50,000 tire replacement every 10,000 miles, obligatory yearly detailing at $10k, fuel costs (that's a 16.4-liter engine under that hood; the car requires high-octane and only gets 3 mpg city, 8 highway), and secure parking and storage (the moguls in Lower Manhattan who own one of these could expect to pay almost as much just for the parking space as for the car, with a monthly service contract payment to boot). You don't have a lot to lose - You can't get blood from a turnip. Bankruptcy laws typically prevent creditors from taking things you need to live or do your job, including your home, your car, wardrobe, etc. For someone just starting out, that may be all you have. It could still be bad for you, but comparing that to, say, a small business owner with a net worth in the millions who's found liable for a slip and fall in his store, there's a lot more to be lost in the latter case, and in a hurry. For the same reason, litigious people and their legal representation look for deep pockets who can pay big sums quickly instead of $100 a month for the rest of their life, and so very few lawyers will target you as an individual unless you're the only one to blame (rare) or their client insists on making it personal. Most of your liability is already covered, one way or the other - When something happens to someone else in your home, your homeowner's policy includes a personal liability rider. The first two \"\"buckets\"\" of state-mandated auto liability insurance are for personal injury liability; the third is for property (car/house/signpost/mailbox). Health insurance covers your own emergency care, no matter who sent you to the ER, and life and AD&D insurance covers your own death or permanent disability no matter who caused it (depending on who's offering it; sometimes the AD&D rider is for your employer's benefit and only applies on the job). 99 times out of 100, people just want to be made whole when it's another Average Joe on the other side who caused them harm, and that's what \"\"normal\"\" insurance is designed to cover. It's fashionable to go after big business for big money when they do wrong (and big business knows this and spends a lot of money insuring against it), but when it's another little guy on the short end of the stick, rabidly pursuing them for everything they're worth is frowned on by society, and the lawyer virtually always walks away with the lion's share, so this strategy is self-defeating for those who choose it; no money and no friends. Now, if you are the deep pockets that people look for when they get out of the hospital, then a PLP or other supplemental liability insurance is definitely in order. You now think (as you should) that you're more likely to be sued for more than your normal insurance will cover, and even if the insurance company thinks the same as you and will only offer a rather expensive policy, it becomes a rather easy decision of \"\"lose a little every month\"\" or \"\"lose it all at once\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e48a26da3c0a0c63bdae93575ef5466c",
"text": "You only need umbrella policy for large amounts of liability protection (I think they usually start with $1M). So if you don't have and don't expect to have assets at such a high value - why would you need the insurance? Your homeowners/renters/car/travel insurance should be enough, and you still need to have those for umbrella since its on top of the existing coverage, not instead. Many people just don't have enough assets to justify such a high coverage.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "43bfcb307ebfd5d196bfaafbe1c6da53",
"text": "If someone recommends a particular investment rather than a class of investments, assume they are getting a commission and walk away. If someone recommends whole life insurance as an investment vehicle, walk away. Find someone whose fiduciary responsibility is explicitly to you as their client. That legally obligated them to consider your best interests first. It doesn't guarantee they are good, but it's done protection against their being actively evil.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e986d00b1b65c89f70aea126b6dfa7a3",
"text": "\"You are kind of thinking of this correctly, but you will and should pay for insurance at some point. What I mean by that is that, although the insurance company is making a profit, that removing the risk for certain incidents from your life, you are still receiving a lot of value. Things that inflict large losses in your life tend to be good insurance buys. Health, liability, long term care, long term disability and property insurance typically fall into this category. In your case, assuming you are young and healthy, it would be a poor choice to drop the major medical health insurance. There is a small chance you will get very sick in the next 10 years or so and require the use of this insurance. A much smaller chance than what is represented by the premium. But if you do get very sick, and don't have insurance, it will probably wipe you out financially. The devastation could last the rest of your life. You are paying to mitigate that possibility. And as you said, it's pretty low cost. While you seem to be really good at numbers it is hard to quantify the risk avoidance. But it must be considered in your analysis. Also along those lines is car insurance. While you may not be willing to pay for \"\"full coverage\"\" it's a great idea to max out your personal liability if you have sufficient assets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8c7c147d3aff7133b59201bcddfcdd5",
"text": "\"Sales tactics for permanent insurance policies can get pretty sleazy. Sending home a flier from school is a way for an insurance salesperson to get his/her message out to 800 families without any effort at all, and very little advertising cost (just a ream of paper and some toner). The biggest catchphrases used are the \"\"just pennies per day\"\" and \"\"in case they get (some devastating medical condition) and become uninsurable.\"\" Sure, both are technically true, but are definitely used to trigger the grown ups' insecurities. Having said that (and having been in the financial business for a time, which included selling insurance policies), there is a place for insurance of children. A small amount can be used to offset the loss of income for the parents who may have to take extended time away from work to deal with the event of the loss of their child, and to deal with the costs of funeral and burial. Let's face it, the percentage of families who have a sufficiently large emergency fund is extremely small compared to the overall population. Personally, I have added a child rider to my own (term) insurance policies that covers any/all of my children. It does add some cost to my premiums, but it's a small cost on top of something that is already justifiably in place for myself. One other thing to be aware of: if you're in a group policy (any life insurance where you're automatically accepted without any underwriting process, like through a benefit at work, or some other club or association), the healthy members are subsidizing the unhealthy ones. If you're on the healthy side, you might consider foregoing that policy in favor of getting your own policy through an insurance company of your choice. If you're healthy, it will always be cheaper than the group coverage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3491f61b38a6415470586610f3170495",
"text": "\"One reason is because car insurance is mandated. Mandated insurance means the government is forcing people to purchase it, which also means that everyone must have the opportunity to purchase it at a reasonable cost, even if the insurer would normally not choose to insure them. In mandated industries, risk pools are formed which means that as a whole, lower risk members partially subsidize higher risk members. In mandated industries that have a large risk variance, the insurance system would break down if everyone was charged their \"\"fair share\"\" because high risk members would be unable to afford a policy. (This is even more prominent with health insurance than car insurance because the difference in risk is vastly greater.) On a positive note, perhaps you may get a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that you are helping out others \"\"in need\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7288244b1e70bb0b665ab9461c33d128",
"text": "While I can't say how it is in the Philippines, my wife the insurance broker leads me to believe that individual insurance is more expensive than group coverages in the US almost always. So much so that people will go to great extents to form any sort of business just to insure themselves. If however it is cheaper, can't you simply opt out of your employer's plan? If you can opt out, will your employer give you any of the money they aren't paying for your insurance? If you can't opt out, or if you paycheck doesn't grow, I can't see why you would want additional coverage especially at such a young age. Should you lose your job in the near future and you worry about, go get the insurance then. EDIT One big advantage is if you get personal insurance, you might need to get an exam to qualify, and it is likely the younger you are the better you will qualify. But again, you already have insurance that covers you so I would advise keeping the group policy is probably better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1370c5e19e8cb80afba418a4da199a96",
"text": "Not to pick your words apart, but I'm used to the word laddering as used with CDs or bonds, where one buys a new say, 7 year duration each year with old money coming due and, in effect, is always earning the longer term rate, while still having new funds available each year. So. The article you link suggests that there's money to be saved by not taking a long term policy on all the insurance you buy. They split $250K 30 year / $1M 20 year. The money saved by going short on the bigger policy is (they say) $11K. It's an interesting idea. Will you use the $11K saved to buy a new $1M 10 year policy in 20 years, or will you not need the insurance? There are situations where insurance needs drop, e.g. 20 years into my marriage, college fully funded as are retirement accounts. I am semi-retired and if I passed, there's enough money. There are also situations where the need runs longer. The concept in the article works for the former type of circumstance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9656dbde9bcf9ceff0f8dccdca838802",
"text": "Depending on your perspective of it, I can see reasons for and against this idea. Only with the benefit of hindsight can one say how wise or unwise it is to do so. Earlier in my career, I invested and lost it all. Understand if you do buy when would you be able to sell, do you have to have an account with the underwriter, what fees may there be in having such an account, and would there be restrictions on when you could sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91661f1933fc8339c681374e1d9834ac",
"text": "Since insurance is priced for profit, the price will be more than the price of a new phone multiplied against the chance of loss and payout. Otherwise insurance would not be offered since there was no money to be made by the insurance company. The idea of insurance is that you are pooling your risk with everyone else. You all definitely pay a little (insurance premium) instead of any of you maybe paying a lot (when a phone is destroyed). The question is not whether it is a good investment (almost surely no), but whether the loss at a random time would be too crippling to be absorbed by you when it happened. If you can afford a new phone without financial difficulty if it were destroyed then you should generally not buy insurance. One other factor could be that although you are in the same risk pool as everyone else (everyone pays the same rate), but your situation has a higher risk than most, insurance can be a better deal, though the better investment over time would be to correct the risky situation instead of buying insurance. This could be that you have a habit of losing things, live in an area where phones are stolen often, have pets that destroy your belongings, etc. Statistically, you will come out ahead not buying insurance, but you are accepting an unknown outcome.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e5c075808444b3079a84d19def23ea",
"text": "\"There is an economic, a social and a psychological side to the decision whether to buy insurance or not, and if yes, which one. Economically, as you say already in your question, an insurance is on average a net loss for the insured. The key word here is \"\"average\"\". If you know that there are many cancer cases in your family buy health insurance by all means; it's a sound investment. If you are a reckless driver make sure you have extensive coverage on your liability insurance. But absent such extra risks: Independently of somebody's wealth insurance should be limited to covering catastrophic events. What is often overlooked is that the insurance by all means should really cover those catastrophic events. For example the car liability minimums in many states are not sufficient. The typical upper middle class person could probably pay the 15k/30k/10k required in Arizona with a loan on their house; but a really catastrophic accident is simply not covered and would totally ruin that person and their family. Insuring petty damage is a common mistake: economically speaking, all insurances should have deductibles which are as high as one could afford to pay without feeling too much pain. That \"\"pain\"\" qualification has an economical and a social aspect. Of course any risk which materialized is an economical damage of some kind; perhaps now I can't buy the PS4, or the diamond ring, or the car, or the house, or the island which had caught my eye. I could probably do all these things, just perhaps without some extras, even if I had paid for insurance; so if I don't want to live with the risk to lose that possibility I better buy insurance. Another economical aspect is that the money may not be available without selling assets, possibly on short notice and hence not for the best price. Then an insurance fee takes the role of paying for a permanent backup credit line (and should not be more expensive than that). The social aspect is that even events which wouldn't strictly ruin a person might still force them to, say, sell their Manhattan penthouse (no more parties!) or cancel their country club membership. That is a social pain which is probably to be avoided. Another socioeconomic aspect is that you may have a relationship to the person selling you the insurance. Perhaps he buys his car at your dealership? Perhaps he is your golf buddy? Then the insurance may be a good investment. It is only borderline bad to begin with; any benefits move the line into the profit zone. The psychological aspect is that an insurance buys peace of mind, and that often seems to be the most important benefit. A dart hits the flat screen? Hey, it was insured. Junior totals the Ferrari? Hey, it was insured. Even if the house burns down having fire insurance will be a consolation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "237ac6e2a6adcc9579322678030523b6",
"text": "Another fun fact: only ~10% of property southern California is covered by earthquake insurance. Why? Same reason as here. 1) It is a difficult to measure the risk. Think: Texas has experienced 3 100-year floods in 18 months. This amount of rain could have caused a wide range of different outcomes (anywhere from tens of millions to tens of billions in damage) depending on location, soil saturation, structural integrity of dams, wind direction, drainage/sewage systems, etc. Insurers who have covered these types of disasters before have paid out more in claims then they took in premiums. 2) It is expensive. Yes, you can reinsure but most of the reinsures won't take this type of risk in their property portfolio in such a soft market that has persisted for roughly a decade. Consumers don't want to pay for the coverage because it is expensive even with government backstops. The smart money would be in investing in resiliency programs (infrastructure) that would mitigate damage to sensitive areas which would in turn drive down premiums. But that requires governments, citizens, and businesses to engage in long run thinking and execution. Some areas have discussed these types of plans (New Orleans comes to mind) but most of our coastlines need to have plans like this in place given sea level rises, high concentrations of valuable assets on shorelines, and warmer oceans having the potential to generate more intense storms. tl;dr this is not a new problem. It is nobody's fault but everybody's responsibility. Fuck nature, man",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c66ba9f4f3ff61ebd2e8c6b23ade1366",
"text": "One of the more subtle disadvantages to large credit card purposes purchases (besides what the other answer mentions), is that it makes you less prepared for emergencies. If you carry a large balance on your credit card with the idea that your income can easily handle the payments to beat the no-interest period, you never know when you'll have an unexpected emergency and you'll end up having to pay less, miss the deadline and end up paying huge interest. Even if you are fastidious about saving and budgeting, what if your family comes under a large financial burden (just as one possible example)?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f2487f643a187dfc1e4bd144bd1b541",
"text": "If the child can take over the life insurance when they wish to get a mortgage or have their own children, there may be a case for buying insurance for the child in the event that your child's health is not good enough for them to get cover at that time. However I don’t think this type of insurance is worth having.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de4fcb8ec22d7cad3076d944c5a39ab5",
"text": "Another reason to buy insurance, though not applicable in this case, is that the insurance company is a big buyer of services and will be able to buy any services covered under the policy much more cheaply than you will. So they can charge you less than your expected payouts if you were uninsured and still make a profit. This particularly applies to things like medical and veterinary insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb9010f18a4e49aa74aab3af0e2b48b8",
"text": "\"The general answer to any \"\"is it worth it\"\" insurance question is \"\"no,\"\" because the insurance company is making a profit on the insurance.* To decide if you want the insurance, you need to figure out how much you can afford to pay if something happens, how much they cover, and how badly you want to transfer your risk to them. If you won't have trouble coming up with the $4000 deductible should you need to, then don't get this extra insurance. * I did not mean to imply that insurance is always a bad idea or that insurance companies are cheating their customers. Please let me explain further. When you buy any product from a business, that business is making a profit. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. They are providing a service and should be compensated for their efforts. Insurance companies also provide a service, but unlike other types of businesses, their product is monetary. You pay them money now, and they might pay you money later. If they pay you more money then you spent, you came out ahead, and if you spend more money then they give you, it was a loss for you. In order for the insurance company to make a profit, they need to bring in more money than they pay out. In fact, they need to bring in a lot more money then they pay out, because in addition to their profit, they have all the overhead of running a business. As a result, on average, you will come out behind when you purchase insurance. This means that when you are on the fence about whether or not to purchase any insurance product, the default choice should be \"\"no.\"\" On average, you are financially better off without insurance. Now, that doesn't mean you should never buy insurance. As mentioned by commenter @xiaomy, insurance companies spread risk across all of their customers. If I am in a situation where I have a risk of financial ruin in a certain circumstance, I can eliminate that risk by purchasing insurance. For example, I have term life insurance, because if I were to pass away, it would be financially catastrophic for my family. (I'm hoping that the insurance company makes 100% profit on that deal!) I also continue to buy expensive health insurance because an unexpected medical event would be financially devastating. However, I always decline the extended warranty when I buy a $300 appliance, because I don't have any trouble coming up with another $300 in the unlikely event that it breaks, and I would rather keep the money than contribute to the profits of an insurance company unnecessarily. In my original answer above, I pointed out how you would determine whether or not to purchase this particular insurance product. This product pays out a bunch of relatively small amounts for certain events, up to a limit of $4000. Would this $4000 be hard for you to come up with if you needed to? If so, get the insurance. But if you are like me and have an emergency fund in place to handle things like this, then you are financially better off declining this policy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82379ac03993b758aa664cb67d6905ad",
"text": "\"The size terminology for lumber is based on the rough cut dimensions from the mill, not the actual size of the board at Home Depot. There's post finishing done to 2x4's, etc from the big box stores. It's been that way for 50 years. If a couple of hipsters got their feelings hurt because they didn't know what they were doing, tell them to watch a youtube video about lumber before screwing up a home improvement project. They wouldn't have the slightest idea what to do with an actual rough cut 1x6 anyway. They'd get home with it, and if by some miracle they managed to plane it, they'd realize they're left with a 3/4\"\"x5 3/4\"\" board, just like you get from Home Depot. Grow up, pansies.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
83605f56969871312a073aca35a1801b
|
I earn $75K, have $30K in savings, no debt, rent from my parents who are losing their home. Should I buy a home now or save?
|
[
{
"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": "1e06a2786f1164414a9e785519945f77",
"text": "This solution obviously wouldn't work for everyone, and is contingent on the circumstances of your parents' finances with regards to their house, but... Have you considered buying your parents' house? This way your parents' desire for you to get a house as an investment would be satisfied, they wouldn't have to worry about losing their home, and you might even be able to work out a financing/rent deal that is beneficial to everyone involved. There are definitely fewer costs going this route anyway, for instance, your parents won't have any marketing costs associated with selling the house and could pass this savings along to you. Also, having lived in the house for a large part of your life you will also know what you are getting in to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8825a32eb3c62944620577a4707afdb9",
"text": "\"For the vast majority, \"\"buying\"\" a house via a mortgage is not an investment. I use quotes around buying because from a technical perspective you don't own anything until you've paid it off; this is often an important point that people forget. It's highly unlikely you'll make more on it than the amount you put into it (interest, repairs, etc). Even with relatively low interest rates. The people who successfully invest in homes are those that use actual cash (not borrowed) to buy a home at well below market value. They then clean it up and make enough repairs to make it marketable and sell it shortly there after. Sometimes these people get hosed if the housing market tumbles to the point that the home is now worth less than the amount they put into it. This is especially problematic if they used bank loans to get the process going. They were actually the hardest hit when the housing bubble popped several years ago. Well, them and the people who bought on interest only loans or had balloon payments. Whereas the people who use a mortgage are essentially treating it like a bank account with a negative interest rate. For example, $180k loan on a 30 yr fixed at 4% will mean a total payout of around $310k, excluding normal repairs like roofs, carpet, etc. Due to how mortgage's work, most of the interest is collected during the first half of the loan period. So selling it within 2 to 5 years is usually problematic unless the local housing market has really skyrocketed. Housing markets move up and down all the time due to a hundred different things completely out of your control. It might be a regional depression, weather events, failed large businesses, failed city/local governments, etc. It could go up because businesses moved in, a new highway is built, state/local taxes decline, etc. My point is, homes are not long term investments. They can be short term ones, but only in limited circumstances and there is a high degree of risk involved. So don't let that be a driving point of your decision. Instead you need to focus on other factors. Such as: what is really going on with the house you are currently in? Why would they lose it? Can you help out, and, should you help out? If things are precarious, it might make more sense to sell that home now and everyone move into separate locations, possibly different rentals or apartments. If they are foreclosed on then they will be in a world of financial hurt for a long time. If we ignore your parents situation, then one piece of advice I would give you is this: Rent the cheapest apartment you can find that is still a \"\"safe\"\" place to live in. Put every dollar you can into some type of savings/investment that will actually grow. Stay there for 5+ years, then go pay cash for a nice home. Making $75k a year while single means that you don't need much to live on. In other words, live extremely cheap now so you can enjoy a fantastic living experience later that is free from financial fear. You should be able to put $30k+ per year aside going this route. edit: A bit of support data for those that somehow think buying a home on a mortgage is somehow a good investment: Robert Shiller, who won a Nobel prize in economics and who predicted the bursting of the housing bubble, has shown that a house is not a good investment. Why? First, home prices (adjusted for inflation) have been virtually unchanged for the past 100 years. (link 1, link 2) Second, after you add in the costs of maintenance alone then those costs plus what you've paid for the home will exceed what you get out of it. Adding in the cost of a mortgage could easily double or even triple the price you paid which makes things even worse. Maintenance costs include things like a new roof, carpet/flooring, water heater, appliances, etc. Yes, a home might cost you $100k and you might sell it for $200k after 15 years. However during that time you'll likely replace the roof ($10k to $20k), replace appliances ($2k to $5k), water heater ($1k), carpet/flooring ($5k to $20k), paint ($3k to $6k), and mortgage related costs (~$60k - assuming 30 yr fixed @4%). So your \"\"costs\"\" are between $180k and $200k just on those items. There are many more that could easily escalate the costs further. Like a fence ($5k+), air conditioner ($5k+), windows, etc. The above is assuming the home actually appreciates in value faster than inflation: which they historically haven't over the long term. So you have to consider all of the costs ultimately paid to purchase and maintain the home vs the costs of renting during the same time period. Point is: do your research and be realistic about it. Buying a home is a huge financial risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2b3ac3e04f16008caaa1ceb136d3ef0",
"text": "If you think that your parents' home is in danger, you might want to check what it would take to make sure their house is safe, and what the financial situation actually is. You are paying rent, there are brothers who may or may not be paying rent. We don't have the information, you have. Saving that house might be a worthwhile investment. I assume that if you moved out, either rented or by buying a house, they wouldn't get any rent from you anymore and whatever the situation is, it would be much worse.",
"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": "a88ece2a5328c8f50bc1fe27e8bf1e99",
"text": "Plus, there's the feeling my parents want me to have a house in case we can't save the one we (my mom and brothers) all live in. First, you should not be forced to buy a home because your parents are telling you to. You should have your own life. Period. That said, while you are doing well from a salary perspective, your savings are somewhat borderline for a purchase if you ask me. Meaning your savings would essentially be the full downpayment & then your whole paycheck basically becomes payments on the mortgage. Not a good situation to be in. My advice would be that if you can invest in something smaller—like a small apartment for yourself—that is what you should purchase. That would allow you to invest in something but not be completely financially drained by the prospect. And then in a few years, you can sell that apartment & move onto something else. Perhaps a house at that stage? But right now, a full home purchase would be a fairly massive risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3befbb389bfa24fb7a4ab586ee947b5",
"text": "\"Real Estate has historically been the most sound investment of all times. Not only does property consistant increase in value (which is what you want every investment to do), it does so at the highest rate with the lowest risk. Most return on investment (like a stock in the market) the potential rate of gain is proportionat to the potential loss. The more secure an investment, the lower the potential gain. But, with Real Estate, property typically doubles in value every 10 years. Our overall R.E. economy is on an upward turn, recovering from a time where values tanked. to jump in now, is probably better than waiting for any amount of time, be it 1 month, or 1 year. You concern about being \"\"tied in\"\" to this investment is a valid concern, however, since the market is in an upward turn, you should be more and more able to turn around and sell it later on. The best thing that you could potentially do would be to invest in a rental property where your cost of investment (your mortgage note) is paid by the renters. However, being a landlord is always a risky business (hence, the higher rate of return, which considering your investment is ultimately zero, the return rate is huge :-) The trick would be to take the reters payments to you and keep it in an account that you use to pay for any repairs, upgrades, or marketing in between when the unit is vacant. But, with your parents losing their house, this may not be possible - unless you take their home and then keep the living arrangments the same as they are now. One possibility to help you get your foot in the door of being a property owner (not necessarily \"\"investor\"\") and help your parents keep their house (if that is what they would like to do) is re-finance with them... if you can't afford the entire mortgage, but they are capable of filling the gap between what you can afford and what their property costs, then you become partnered with them, and when/if their circumstances change, they can always buy you out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f11d7ecd4c9cdce45d294a32031f9d3c",
"text": "To be honest, if it's a home all of you share you should try and save the home for your parents. your 26, you will have plenty of time to make 30k again. Having a home headquarters will bring some security to the family. Not only that your parents are old now, it could be hard for them to get another home. They have sacrificed for you, so maybe you should sacrifice for them? Thank god i have no family.",
"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": "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": "064495cf3332a8aabc1d6f1343e99bd0",
"text": "Paying down your mortgage now will decrease the total cost of your home loan and the time period for which your loan lasts. Even if you trade up in that time period, you will be that much closer to being free of house payments. Owning your home outright gives you a significant amount of freedom to consider less lucrative and more personally fulfilling career options- especially if your work environment becomes unpleasant. It can also help you weather the storm of a job loss more easily (though you should also build an emergency fund). Homes are depreciating, illiquid assets with significant transaction fees. It is wise to get a starter home that meets your current needs and move up to a home that better meets your needs as you mature. However, getting on the status treadmill and buying large showy homes that generally exceed the utility that you get out of them is expensive, a poor investment, and often impairs the ability to generate long term wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20e166df2c93571c305e04030bb03ede",
"text": "Do you want a house? Sounds like you do. Did you think about what it will take to own a run a house? I am betting you have. Buying a home shouldn't be about an investment in anything other than you happiness and you sure seem conscientious and ready. Your worries are good ones, but don't forget about unemployment insurance, that as responsible people you can get another job. Do you have a life insurance policy? If you really really can't afford your payments, you can try to sell the house because you should have plenty of equity per your plans. Furthermore, chances are you will earn more in your paychecks over your lifetime. Think about what features you want, shop the market hard, take time and buy a house on reason rather than love. Don't you dare love the house until you buy it.",
"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": "b2357d8110fb4543d81549c6e887d7e6",
"text": "The problem is, you are trying to qualify for a loan that has a 25% down payment using money you don't have, which defeats the purpose of having a down payment. The best thing to do is have your parents buy the house for you. You then rent the house from them where your rent is equal to the mortgage + x. Your parents then put x into savings account for you and then once you have 25% in that account, they gift it to you and you purchase the house from them using that 25% as the downpayment for the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcae4ec650f640cfaaaced33ca0d5542",
"text": "I'm going to take a different path than the other answers: Given how low interest rates are (depending on your credit), buying a house may be a great strategy. However, I would not put more than 20% down. Putting more than 20% down unnecessarily ties up cash that could be used more productively elsewhere. You need to figure out your cash flow situation both for the near term, and for the long term. For the short term, you probably won't need to help your kids with tuition. They will likely be able to get a combination of grants, scholarships, and loans that will cover the cost. However, the loans are generally not low interest, and that is a huge amount of debt for someone so young. If you want to help pay your kids tuition, you should at least guestimate/budget that amount now. For the long term, without any retirement savings, you may be hurting in a couple decades. Since you also don't have a home, your living situation may be a problem. Buying a home today may be the prudent move, because that will hopefully be an appreciating asset, and, with a 30 year mortgage, you'll own it outright by 75, which takes a big strain off of retirement costs. $1400 a month in bills (apart from rent/mortgage) with no kids in the house (is this correct?) sounds high. I would also recommend looking at your basic expenses and seeing what you can do without if you are cash strapped.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b709e69dbf9007ae850e17bc6b2055aa",
"text": "You are very young, you make a huge amount of money, and you have (from what information you provide) very little debt. If you simply want to buy a house for whatever reason, sure, but be honest with yourself about why you want to buy it. I see a lot of people who think they're doing it for smart financial reasons, but then when I ask them about their pension savings and credit card debts and so on, there is no evidence that they are actually the kind of person who makes decisions for smart financial reasons. If you want a house because that seems like the thing that people do, maybe you could think more about what you actually want. If your concern is putting your money to work for you (you seem to dislike that you pay rent each month and after that month you don't have anything to show for your money, except of course that you didn't spent the last month living on the streets), you can do a lot better than getting a mortgage. For example, living frugally you should be able to dump 50k a year into investments; if you did that for a few years, you could reasonably expect the return to cover your rent and bills in a surprisingly small number of years (a lot less than a 25 year mortgage). Your question seems to be starting from the position that you should buy a house. You're asking if you should buy it now, or wait. You are rich enough now (and if your earnings keep going up, will be even more rich in a few years) that you should perhaps question your need to buy a house. With your kind of money, at this stage of your life, you can do a lot better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f322b9b5a08727925d15bfeaf3f74e1d",
"text": "I think the consensus is that you can't afford a home now and need to build more of a down payment (20% is benchmark, you may also need to pay mortgage insurance if you are below that) and all considered, it takes up too much of your monthly budget. You didn't do anything wrong but as mentioned by Ben, you are missing some monthly and yearly costs with home ownership. I suggest visiting a bank or somewhere like coldwell banker to discuss accurate costs and regulations in your area. I know the feeling of considering paying more now for the very attractive thought of owning a home... in 30 years. After interest, you need to consider that you are paying almost double the initial principle so don't rush for something you can do a year or two down the line as a major commitment. One major point that isn't emphasized in the current answers. You have a large family: Two children, a dog, and a cat. I don't know the kid's ages but given you are in your early twenties and your estimated monthly costs, they are probably very young before the point they really put any stress financially but you need to budget them in exponentially. Some quick figures from experience. Closing costs including inspections, mortgage origination fee, lawyer fees, checking the history of the home for liens, etc, which will set you back minimum 5% depending on the type of purchase (short sales, foreclosures are more expensive because they take longer) Insurance (home and flood) will depend on your zoning but you can expect anywhere between $100-300 a month. For many zones it is mandatory. Also depending on if it's a coop ($800+), condo($500+) or a townhouse-type you will need to pay different levels of monthly maintenance for the groundskeeping as a cooperative fee. at an estimate of a 250K home, all your savings will not be able to cover your closing costs and all 250k will need to be part of your base mortgage. so your base monthly mortgage payment at around 4% will be $1,200 a month. it's too tight. If it was a friend, I would highly suggest against buying in this case to preserve financial flexibility and sanity at such a young age.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f598ab2f6fbf16a9948e513ffbee3307",
"text": "Lets consider what would happen if you invested $1500/mo plus $10k down in a property, or did the same in a low-cost index fund over the 30 year term that most mortgages take. The returns of either scenarios cannot be guaranteed, but there are long term analyses that shows the stock market can be expected to return about 7%, compounded yearly. This doesn't mean each year will return 7%, some years will be negative, and some will be much higher, but that over a long span, the average will reach 7%. Using a Time-Value-of-Money calculator, that down payment, monthly additions of $1,500, and a 7% annual return would be worth about $1.8M in 30 years. If 1.8M were invested, you could safely withdraw $6000/mo for the rest of your life. Do consider 30years of inflation makes this less than today's dollar. There are long term analyses that show real estate more-or-less keeps track with inflation at 2-4% annual returns. This doesn't consider real estate taxes, maintenance, insurance and the very individual and localized issues with your market and your particular house. Is land limited where you are, increasing your price? Will new development drive down your price? In 30 years, you'll own the house outright. You'll still need to pay property tax and insurance on it, and you'll be getting rental income. Over those 30 years, you can expect to replace a roof, 2-3 hot water heaters, concrete work, several trees, decades of snow shoveling, mowing grass and weeding, your HVAC system, windows and doors, and probably a kitchen and bathroom overhauls. You will have paid about 1.5x the initial price of the mortgage in interest along the way. So you'll have whatever the rental price for your house, monthly (probably almost impossible to predict for a single-family home) plus the market price of your house. (again, very difficult to predict, but could safely say it keeps pace with inflation) minus your expenses. There are scenarios where you could beat the stock market. There are ways to reduce the lifestyle burden of being a landlord. Along the way, should you want to purchase a house for yourself to live in, you'll have to prove the rental income is steady, to qualify for a loan. Having equity in a mortgage gives you something to borrow against, in a HELOC. Of course, you could easily end up owing more than your house is worth in that situation. Personally, I'd stick to investing that money in low-fee index funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700e9a72ad0e8e2ce135cbb86d64d1c0",
"text": "\"Congratulations, you are in great shape financially at a very young age. Great income, nice equity in a home, and mostly debt free. It seems like you are looking at taking out a loan of 400K, and to do so you will have to put your own home at risk as you do not have the 80K cash for a down payment. Correct? It also looks like after 2.1K per year without regard to taxes, maintenance, bad tenants, or vacancies. As such this will likely be a negative cash flow situation. I would say you should plan on a 912/month cost. Are you okay with that? While your income can probably cover this, no problem, is that your objective to have this property have a negative return for the next 10-15 years or so? For me, this is a no. Way too much risk for a negative cash flow. It is hard to talk to the upside as you did not give any profit predictions and I am unsure of the market. Why would you risk jeopardizing your great financial situation with a \"\"hail mary\"\" attempt to make money? Slow down, you will get there. Save for a few years so there is no need to tap your home's equity to make a down payment. It would really bother me to owe 600K on a 121K salary (75K+20K+26K).\"",
"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": "aef86ebe299a964f826a4562492623f3",
"text": "\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \"\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\"\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \"\"fun\"\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dcde1f44c58e9694cf6dd845c37d03b",
"text": "Having someone else paying you rent is always going to be the better deal financially. The question is, what does $450k buy in the neighborhood in which you want to live, vs $800k? I'm going to assume you can afford either option (buying a $450k home and not selling, or an $800k home and selling your current one) whether someone's paying you rent or not. Let's make up some numbers here; a $450k home, financed 80/20 (360k principal) at 4% for 30 years will cost you about $1720 in P&I payments per year (plus escrows such as RE taxes, PMI, and homeowners insurance where applicable). An $800k home financed 80/20 (640k principal) at 4% for 30yr will give you payments of about $3,055/mo before taxes and insurance. So, the worst case overall is that you buy a 450k home in the new neighborhood and are not, at any given time, collecting rent on the old property. That would (assuming the mortgage terms on both home loans were comparable) cost you $3440/mo and you'd be living in a $450k home in a neighborhood where 450k may not buy a home as nice as the one you moved out of. The question as I stated above is this; assuming you had a reliable tenant in your home for the entire remaining life of the loan on your current home, which is more acceptable to you: buying $450k of home (which might be a downgrade in sqft or amenities) and paying $2020 in P&I, or paying about a grand more ($3055/mo) for a much nicer home in the new location? Strictly from a money perspective, the renter is going to be the best option, IF you get reliable tenancy for the entire life of the mortgage on that house; you'll be paying $2020/mo for 30 years, which is $727,200, to end up with $950k of total home value (plus adjustments for actual home value appreciation/depreciation). That's the only way you'll come out ahead on any mortgage; have someone else pay most of it for you. If you don't rent, the $800k home will cost you $1,099,800, while two $450k homes will cost you $1,454,400. The percentage of home value over total payments for the 800k home would be 72% (you will have paid 137% of the value of the home), while you will have paid 153% of the value of two 450k homes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5069019873055d17bce6fac7e64c7c24",
"text": "You could use the money to buy a couple of other (smaller) properties. Part of the rent of these properties would be used to cover the mortgage and the rest is income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cf92c95663f3b8b22cae34423e103f1",
"text": "Assuming you plan to buy a whole number of shares and have a maximum dollar value you intend to invest, it may be better to wait for the split if the figures don't quite work out nicely. For example, if you are going to invest $1,000 and the stock pre-split is $400 and the split is 2 for 1, then you'd buy 2 shares before the split unless you have an extra $200 to add. Meanwhile, after the split you could buy 5 shares at $200 so that you invest all that you intend. Aside from that case, it doesn't really make a difference since the split is similar to getting 2 nickels for a dime which in each case is still a total value of 10 cents.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
86ace8820aa912f5915ac2c4e51544f5
|
What happens if I intentionally throw out a paycheck?
|
[
{
"docid": "97330482e6e670d33a0ce5701967eabd",
"text": "\"How/when does my employer find out? Do they get a report from their bank stating that \"\"check 1234 for $1212.12 paid to John Doe was never deposited\"\" or does it manifest itself as an eventual accounting discrepancy that somebody has to work to hunt down? The accounting department or the payroll company they use will report that the check was not deposited. The bank has no idea that a check was written, but the accounting deportment will know. The bank reports on all the checks that were cashed. Accounting cares because the un-cashed check for $1212.12 is a liability. They have to keep enough money in the bank to pay all the liabilities. It shouldn't be hard for them to track down the discrepancy, they will know what checks are outstanding. Can my employer punish me for refusing the money in this way? Do they have any means to force me to take what I am \"\"owed?\"\" They can't punish you. But at some time in the future they will will tell their bank not to honor the check. They will assume that it was lost or misplaced, and they will issue a new one to you. When tax time comes, and I still have not accepted the money, would it be appropriate to adjust my reported income down by the refused amount? You can't decide not to report it. The company knows that in year X they gave you a check for the money. They are required to report it, since they also withheld money for Federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, 401K, insurance. They also count your pay as a business expense. If you try and adjust the numbers on the W-2 the IRS will note the discrepancy and want more information. Remember the IRS get a copy of every W-2. The employer has to report it because some people who aren't organized may not have cashed a December check before the company has to generate the W-2 in late January. It would confuse everything if they could skip reporting income just because a check wasn't cashed by the time they had to generate the W-2.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eb73a2ca9245aa95108c276f11d1f16",
"text": "In a nutshell, throwing your taxable income in the trash does not remove it from your taxable income; you still have to report in your tax filing, and pay taxes as needed. Especially as you could at any time request your employer to write you a replacement check. I would expect them to start charging a fee for reprinting if you really annoy them by doing it dozens of times. If you want to avoid taxes on it, donate it to a deductible 501(c)3 organization; then it becomes neutral to your taxes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5d59a80cbc6303934bc2c968a57e0e8c",
"text": "IANAL but I'd think common sense would say that if you take advantage of one of the special cases that allow you to withdraw from a retirement plan without penalty, and then for whatever reason you don't use the money for a legal purpose, you would have to either return the money or pay the tax penalty. And I'll go out on a limb here without any documentation and guess that if you lie to the IRS and say that you withdrew the money for an exempt purpose and instead use it to go on vacation and you get caught, that you will not only have to pay the tax penalty but will also be liable for criminal charges of tax fraud. If the law and/or IRS regulations say that the only legal exceptions are A, B, and C, that pretty clearly means that if you do D, you are breaking the law. And in the eyes of the government, failing to pay the taxes you owe is way worse than robbery, murder, or rape.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65e3655d914fd144483dfa301d079f7c",
"text": "I'd think the first question here is: Did they overpay you? And if so, what were the circumstances? At one extreme: If you lied on your timesheet and said you worked 50 hours when really you only worked 40, and they paid you for 50 hours, and now they've figured out that you didn't really work those overtime hours, then yes, they overpaid you and you owe them the money. Or if you reported your time accurately but they made an honest mistake, like you worked 30 hours but for whatever reason they paid you for 40, then they really did overpay you and you owe them the money. Or if a check was just mis-printed because their computer system screwed up or something, sorry, you don't get to keep the money. Yes, we all have fantasies about the bank accidentally adding a million dollars to our balance and somehow we get to keep the money, but sorry, it doesn't work that way in real life. If there's been a mistake, once they figure out the mistake, you have to give the money back. If it's something more complicated, it might be debatable. If you're not sure what the details are, find out the details and investigate. Do you have any evidence that what they are saying is not true? How much money is involved? If we're talking $20, it's not worth going to court over. You'd have to pay a lawyer way more than the $20. A court MIGHT order the company to pay your court costs if you won, but they might not. And if you lost, you could have to pay their court costs, which could be way more than any possible gain. There are times when it's better to just eat the loss and get on with your life. Of course, the same could be said from the other side: If the amount of money is small and the case is debatable and you refuse to hand over the cash, they may just give up figuring it's not worth the trouble. I don't know that I'd want to gamble on that, though. If there is serious money involved, at least several thousand dollars, then it could make sense to talk to a lawyer if you think you have a case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "621d0c1188e1600851fb94c0d18f0a73",
"text": "You'd probably have to sue them to get the money. In most cases those statements have disclaimers all over them telling you about the vesting period and technically that extra money was probably never really in your account. Normally the statements also break out the actual contributions from the employer match part and have a footnote about the vesting policy. Unless the employer was completely incompetent in their management of this account, I am betting they will have documentation of the policy that you supposedly were given. You probably have very slim chances of prevailing on this unless they were very lax in their documentation. I'd say re-check the statements and your employee manually carefully for any mention of vesting. If you don't find it, ask the employer (nicely) where you were notified of this. If they still can't produce any documentation, then sue them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7dd34a5589a65d6d560800040ad42f7",
"text": "\"I disagree with @Sam's answers: yes you will get that money back when your tax return is processed. This is not true. You will receive funds that are in excess of your liability (contrary to popular belief, the government does not take more than what you are liable for). \"\"is it possible to return the check and modify how it's calculated if I talk to payroll?\"\" No. When you sign your documents at the beginning of the year, that will dictate the amount of liability they take from each of your paychecks. \"\"Will this difference be given back in my next tax return\"\" Because your company is withdrawing 25% on your paycheck you may/or may not need to pay more depending on the rest of your salary. The IRS has set the system up as brackets. You pay your taxes based on the amount earned (voluntarily or involuntarily). So if you have income of $9,275 you would pay $923 in taxes at a marginal rate of 10% (and average rate of 10%). If you made $10,000, you would pay $923+$109=$1,032 with your marginal rate as 15% (while your average rate is 10.31%). All in all, this is dependent on your salary, filing, and other deductions to raise or lower your tax liability. Note: The $109 came from this: [(10,000-9,275)*.15]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e31d83c2b6c6c161fe23c93acc427b3d",
"text": "\"Create an account called, say, \"\"Paycheck\"\". When you get paid, create an entry with your gross income as a deposit. For each deduction in your paycheck, create a minus (or expense) entry. After doing that, what will be left in the Paycheck account will be your net income. Simply transfer this amount to the real account your paycheck goes into (your checking account, probably). Almost all the time, the value of your Paycheck account will be 0. It will be nonzero only for a moment every two weeks (or however often you get paid). I don't know if this is the standard way of doing it (in the professional accounting world). It's a way I developed on my own and it works well, I think. I think it's better than just adding a deposit entry in your checking account for your net income as it lets you keep track of all your deductions. (I use Quicken for the Mac. Before they added a Paycheck feature, I used this method. Then they removed the Paycheck feature from the latest version of Quicken for the Mac and I now use this method again.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "173677a1d78c4e8a90b0be22dec7361e",
"text": "\"I had experience working for a company that manufactures stuff and giving products to the employees. The condition was to stay employed for a year after the gift for the company to cover its cost (I think they imputed the tax), otherwise they'd add the cost to the last paycheck (which they did when I left). But they were straight-forward about it and I signed a paper acknowledging it. However, in your case you didn't get a product (that you could return when leaving if you didn't want to pay), but rather a service. The \"\"winning\"\" trip was definitely supposed to be reported as income to you last year. Is it okay for them to treat me differently than the others for tax purposes? Of course not. But it may be that some strings were attached to the winning of the incentive trip (for example, you're required to stay employed for X time for the company to cover the expense). See my example above. Maybe it was buried somewhere in small letters. Can they do this a year after the trip was won and redeemed? As I said - in this case this sounds shady. Since it is a service which you cannot return - you should have been taxed on it when receiving it. Would the IRS want to know about this fuzzy business trip practice? How would I report it? Here's how you can let them know. Besides now understanding the new level of slime from my former employer is there anything else I should be worried about? Could they do something like this every year just to be annoying? No, once they issued the last paycheck - you're done with them. They cannot issue you more paychecks after you're no longer an employee. In most US States, you are supposed to receive the last paycheck on your last day of work, or in very close proximity (matter of weeks at most).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bf5504d00cea413a67082d069b3dcfe",
"text": "\"> The worst that could happen to the employee is they could lose their job. Yes, that's my point. An employee is not going to risk saying \"\"no\"\" to a violation of labor laws when their livelihood depends on keeping the pay check coming.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f1f8ff31dd3660e2605889bd69b79fc",
"text": "They can go to an ATM and deposit it in to their account. The ATM does not care to read the name, and the bank does not care to verify anything if the check goes through (meaning the bank it is drawn on pays). So if nobody complains, that's it, he has your money. You would need to go to the check-writer's bank and ask for help, or look at the check-writer's cancelled check copy if you get to it. That bank can find out where it was deposited to, and then you have to go after the guy and get your money back - if it is still recoverable! - if it is a poor sod and he already blew your 5 grand, you can sue his pants off, but there are no 5 grand in them anywhere. So bad luck for you. Technically, the bank is not supposed to accept the check if the name doesn't match. At the counter, that might get a question, but as said above, there are deposit ATMs, and he could also just endorse the check to himself and sign the endorsement with some illegible scrawling, and claim that this is your signature - how would Joe the teller know? Either way, he gets the check in his account, and then he can take it out and blow it. It is legally clearly theft or fraud, and probably a federal crime, but if the guy is bankrupt, that doesn't help you much. Depending on that bank's fine-print, they might or might not cover your loss, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Better don't lose a check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "031ad6af1f53f6a986927e16c5ed867d",
"text": "If you leave your job (or lose it) the loan is due on separation. You'll pay tax and a10% penalty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a1e6c5dee1dc728561808bbff5abb42",
"text": "\"The answer probably varies with local law, and you haven't said where you're located. In most or all US states, it appears that after some statutory length of time, the bank would transfer the money to the state government, where it would be held indefinitely as \"\"unclaimed property\"\" in the name of the recipient (technically, the payee, the person to whom the check is made payable). This process is called escheatment. Most states publish a list of all unclaimed property, so at some later date the payee could find their name on this list, and realize they were entitled to the funds. There would then be a process by which the payee could claim the funds from the state. Usually the state keeps any interest earned on the money. As far as I know, there typically wouldn't be any way for you, the person who originated the payment, to collect the money after escheatment. (Before escheatment, if you have the uncashed check in your possession, you can usually return it to the bank and have it refunded to you.) I had trouble finding an authoritative source explaining this, but a number of informal sources (found by Googling \"\"cashier check escheatment\"\") seem to agree that this is generally how it works. Here is the web site for a law firm, saying that in California an uncashed cashier's check escheats to the state after 3 years. Until escheatment occurs, the recipient can cash the check at any time. I don't think that cashier's checks become \"\"stale\"\" like personal checks do, and there isn't any situation in which the funds would automatically revert to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d16bd31eccc19c4eaf928074113c0f68",
"text": "I still have my bank account active in usa. Can my company legally deposit my salary in my bank account? Of course they can. Where they deposit is of no consequence (in the US, may be in India). It is who they deposit it for that matters. You need to file form W8 with the company, and they may end up withholding portion of that pay for IRS. You'll need to talk to a tax adviser in India about how to report the income back at home, and you may need to talk to a tax adviser in the US about what to do if the company does indeed remit withholding from your earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1106a29d58d5538e4e2baea1dc30ea",
"text": "The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "9ec1dfd6d86c3a924cdeb48e64cc98ac",
"text": "In the UK the official rule is that a cheque is valid for 3 years from the date it was wrote. However after 3 months some banks can choose to turn them down. I had a cheque once that was a year old which is when I looked it up to see whether it was stil valid, and I found the laws regarding it then. I was actually quite surprised it was 3 years! Btw if it does bounce your quite entitled to ask your employer for a replacement cheque. They owe it you and it's just sat in their account assigned to you anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f14f80b7b309f04558d5bd967798206",
"text": "Take a certain percentage of your income (say, 10%, but more is better if you can) and put it aside with every paycheck. Some employers will even allow you to direct deposit your paycheck into two different accounts and you can specify a certain amount or percentage for the second account. Your savings will go directly into a separate account as if you never had it in the first place. Consider your savings untouchable as spending money. Watch it grow. There's no other secret, you just have to do it!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
050f2e2c78ab55e3e87d91abbcea5d17
|
Do I even need credit cards?
|
[
{
"docid": "50cebe54304399dc8830a8878285b778",
"text": "Credit cards are great. You get free money for 30+ days and a bunch of additional benefits like insurance, extended warranties and reward programs. When vendors don't behave, you dispute the charge with the credit card and they deal with it on your behalf. Just get a fee-free American Express card and pay the balance off each month. There's nothing wrong with using cash either, but I would avoid debit cards like the plague.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a6e0c52a7b8939afaf7259203e176a8",
"text": "Try to buy an airline ticket, rent a hotel room, or rent a car without a credit card. Doable? Perhaps. Easy? Nope. With a debit card, you run the risk of a hotel reserving more than your stay's cost for room service, parking, etc and potentially having a domino effect if other payments bounce. We just spent 3 nights in NYC, room was just over $1000. Do I really want to carry that much cash?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a6eca859a7f7153d84029bc32cdfaff",
"text": "There are numerous reasons that go beyond the immediate requirement for access to credit. Many people just plain don't like carrying cash. Before electronic debit cards became mainstream about the only way to pay for online services was with a credit card. This has now changed just about everywhere except a large number of airlines which still only sell online tickets via a credit card payment. And then there are all those countries where governments (and some banks) have decided to charge merchants more when customers use debit cards. If you don't like carrying cash then you may find that the only card you can use is a credit card. These concerns are gradually disappearing and at some stage someone is likely to offer a combined debit-credit card. At which point you'll probably get credit whether you like it or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37f9ccbc98e620f8cafda25f86a159ee",
"text": "You don't need a credit card anymore than you need a TV or a car. There might be many circumstances where a credit card is a convenience, there might be things you give up because you don't have a credit card. There are even some upsides to a well managed card account. But no, you don't need it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74a87d751a1ab73ea40a716c13379be4",
"text": "People have credit cards for various reasons depending upon their personal situation and uses You don't need to have a Credit Card if you don't have a reason to. But most people do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac6c8b4a19615ff7b2de20577028940c",
"text": "A credit card can be a long running line of credit that will help to boost your FICO score. However if you have student loans, a mortgage, or car payments those will work just as well. If you ever get to the point where you don't have any recent lines of credit, this may eventually end up hurting your score, but until then you really don't need any extras.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4502fb18066fc053cd52c0aca1090f1",
"text": "You don't need credit cards but there are few benefits, if you pay them off right away I assume you do have a debit card, since sometimes (like unattended gas stations or shopping on the web) cash is not accepted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f61e2fa0b51e154e19ee6efdffc99751",
"text": "\"No you do not need a credit card. They are convenient to have sometimes. But you do not \"\"need\"\" one. I know people who only have one for use when they travel for work and get reimbursed later. But most companies have other ways to pay for your travel if you tell them you do not have a credit card.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "429300aac743c8e517657e31c1bcb4e7",
"text": "I can't answer the question if you should or shouldn't get a credit card; after all, you seem to manage fine without one (which is good). I started using credit cards when I lived in the UK as the consumer protection you get from a credit card there tends to be better than from a debit card. I'd also treat it as a debit or charge card, ie pay it off in full every month. That way, because you're not carrying a balance the high interest rate doesn't matter and you avoid the trap of digging yourself deeper into the hole each month. Cashback or other perks offered by a credit card can be worth it, but (a) make sure that they're worth more than the yearly fee and (b) that they're perks you're actually using. For that reason, cashback tends to work best. I'd get a VISA or Mastercard, they seem to be the ones that pretty much everybody accepts. Amex can have better perks but tends to be more expensive and isn't accepted everywhere, especially not outside the US. But in the end, do you really need one if you're managing fine without one?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2786cbf4423fa30dc7a0d1cbed87a1a5",
"text": "If you are in the U.S., without credit cards, you probably don't have a credit history. Without a credit history, you won't be able to get a loan/mortgage, and even if you do, you'll get it on very unfavorable terms. Depending on where you live you might even have great difficulty renting an apartment. So, the most important reason to have credit cards is to have a good credit score. People have already listed other advantages of having credit cards, but another thing that wasn't mentioned is fraud protection. Credit cards are better protected against fraud than debit cards. You probably shouldn't use debit cards online unless you must. Also, without a credit card or credit history, some simple and important liberties like renting a car while you are travelling might be denied to you. So, in conclusion, it's bizarre, but in modern America you need credit cards, and you need them bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a47cc29f2e01747714734a1f3a1113ca",
"text": "Eventually you are going to need some sort of real credit history. It is possible that you will be able to evade this if you never buy a house, or if you pay cash for any house/condo/car/boat/etc that you buy. Even employers check credit history these days. I wouldn't be surprised if some medical professionals such as surgeons check it also. Obviously if you have a mortgage and car loan this doesn't apply, but I'd be curious how you acquired those unless you have substantial income and/or assets. Combine this with the fact that certain things like renting a car essentially require a credit card (because they need to put a hold on more money than they are actually going to take out of your card, so they can take that money if you don't bring the car back), and I think you should have a credit card unless you and your wife are individuals with zero impulse control, which sounds highly improbable. If your concern is the financial liability of the credit line, just keep the credit line low.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f23b324328a3959962de22867d43218",
"text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e730aab19de38394b4ebdb278b211e4a",
"text": "Credits are expensive, so it's a great advantage to pay in cash. Obviously, it's even more an advantage to pay in cash for a house or a car, of course if you can afford it. But, as annoying as it could be, there are some services, where you're out of option to pay in cash, or even to pay by bank transfer. One of the most prominent examples, Google Play (OK, as I've learned, there are prepaid cards. But Groundspeak, for example, has none.). With the further expansion of Internet and E-Economy there will be more cases like that, where paying in cash is no more an option. Booking of hotels or hostels is already mentioned. There are some that provide no other booking option that giving your credit card number. However, even if the do, for example bank transfer of, say, 20% as reservation fee, please note that international money transfer can be very expensive, and credit card is usually given only for security in case you don't come, and if you do come and pay in cash, no money is taken = no expensive fee for international money transfer and/or disadvantaging currency exchange rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0705011a94c6f42e4594a8b2d3c5aafb",
"text": "\"The key part of your question is the \"\"so far\"\". So you didn't need a credit card today, or yesterday, or last month - great! But what about tomorrow? The time may come when you really need to spend a little more than you have, and a credit card will let you do that, at a very modest cost if you pay it off promptly (no cost, if paid within 30 days). I learned this when I was traveling and stranded due to bad weather. I had almost nothing in my bank account at the time, and while I actually did have a small student-type credit card, I came really close to having to sleep at the train station when I didn't have enough for another night in a hotel. As an example, if you have close friends or family living across the country, and something tragic were to happen, would you be able to pay for a flight to attend the funeral? What if you'd recently had an accident and a big medical bill (it doesn't take much, a broken arm can cost $10,000)? Perhaps you have a solid nest egg, but breaking a CD ahead of schedule or taking short-term capital gains on a mutual fund will usually cost more than one or two months of interest payments.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ba5e72b09d215ff8acab3310262b3c2c",
"text": "I just want to stress one point, which has been mentioned, but only in passing. The disadvantage of a credit card is that it makes it very easy to take on a credit. paying it off over time, which I know is the point of the card. Then you fell into the trap of the issuer of the card. They benefit if you pay off stuff over time; that's why taking up a credit seems to be so easy with a credit (sic) card. All the technical aspects aside, you are still in debt, and you never ever want to be so if you can avoid it. And, for any voluntary, non-essential, payment, you can avoid it. Buy furniture that you can pay off in full right now. If that means only buying a few pieces or used/junk stuff, then so be it. Save up money until you can buy more/better pieces.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffa94275aa93cb5a176269ec1ea4ee25",
"text": "Credit cards are a basic building block of a stable financial plan. By using a credit card for every purchase above, say, the price of a coffee you gain a number of material benefits. You get the free use of the bank's money for about a month. You reduce the amount of cash you require to almost nothing. You get a handy budget tracking tool as many credit cards help you assign categories to expenses. You can typically download your transactions and import them into a budget app for handy record keeping. Many cards offer benefits such as extended warranties on items purchased, travel insurance, reward points and other benefits. There is only one caveat: Pay the entire balance, in full, every month, on or before the due date. Don't even THINK about paying anything less and don't EVER be late.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef4425720fc7d104b359eb30f87b432a",
"text": "In Canada, there are many stores that take debit (Interac) but don't take Visa or MasterCard. For example, a corner store. In the US the reverse is often true: every tiny place seems to take Visa or MasterCard, but not debit. A Visa debit card looks like a Visa card to the merchant. It therefore has the benefit of being usable at places that only take Visa. (Substitute MasterCard as necessary.) This benefit is very small in Canada, less so elsewhere. Meanwhile the money is actually coming out of your bank account just like a debit card, which therefore has the benefit that you're not borrowing money, can't accidentally overspend, and run no risk of incurring interest charges. It is also a way to get what appears to be a credit card when you can't qualify for credit. If you do the majority of your spending in Canada, you don't need a Visa or MasterCard debit card. Your regular debit card (Interac) will work fine for you. If you have a credit card anyway (from another bank or whatever) then again, you don't need a debit card that can pretend to be a credit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "399b94cafae1981298f8c7b2e307857e",
"text": "I am like you with not acknowledging balances in my accounts, so I pay my credit card early and often. Much more than once a month. With my banks bill pay, I can send money to the credit card for free and at any time. I pay it every two weeks (when I get paid), and I will put other extra payments on there if I bought a large item. It helps me keep my balances based in reality in Quicken. For example, I saved the cash for my trip, put the trip on my credit card, then paid it all off the day after I got home. I used the card because I didn't want to carry the cash, I wanted the rewards cash back, I wanted the automatic protection on the car rental, and I couldn't pay for a hotel with cash. There are many good reasons to use credit cards, but only if you can avoid carrying a balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e52366d8966e913b60bd0a8484a839bf",
"text": "Not sure if serious or not, but i'll bite. First of all the service you are purchasing is the access to credit card, which runs on a network supplied by financial institutions. Secondly credit card is an optional fee, taxes are mandatory (unless you are a crook).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d14711729b97add28c20e2e8b1141186",
"text": "\"I'm the contrarian on this forum. Since you asked a \"\"should I ...\"\" question, I'm free to answer \"\"No, you shouldn't increase your limit. Instead, you should close it out\"\". A credit card is a money pump - it pumps money from your account to the bank's profit margins. When I look at my furniture and the bank's furniture, I know exactly who needs my money more (hint: it's not the bank). Credit cards change people's spending patterns. In my first day of training as a Sears salesman, the use of the card was drummed into our heads. People purchase on average 25% more when they use a card than when they pay cash. That's good if you're a retailer or the lender (at that time Sears was both), but no good if you're a consumer. Build up a $1,000 emergency fund (for emergencies only, not \"\"I need a quick latte because I stayed up too late last night\"\"), then savings for 6 to 12 months living expenses. Close and cut up the credit card. Save up and pay cash for everything except possibly your house mortgage. If you have that much cash in the bank, the bankers will be as willing to talk to you as if you had an 800+ score. I have lived both with and without debt. Life without debt is well worth the short term sacrifice early on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38e4f903129eea009106df399fa19e67",
"text": "\"Pretty much every american \"\"borrows\"\". Credit cards are essential in building credit history and story. Debit cards got popular in the past few years, but most still borrow at least a little bit on credit and pay it off right away.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d1b5fd24a8e63382d7e89adc5f8419e",
"text": "How you can pay your rent is really up to your landlord. They are, however, unlikely to take a credit card, for at least two reasons. Firstly they are unlikely to have the means to take electronic payment Second, and more importantly, merchants get charged a percentage of the transaction. These fees can be quite high to them for premium cards like travel and gold cards; three, four or even five percent of the value of the transaction. This is sometimes why you see cash discounted pricing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57df0258a0afb33df7402a40ec2fc121",
"text": "In general, minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts -- which is what credit accounts are -- so an individually held card is probably not an option for you right now. You will not be approved for a credit card because you are minor. The only option credit card wise for you is for your parents to add you on as an authorized user onto their accounts. The upside is that you and your parents can work out a monthly payment for the amount you spend on your equipment, the downside is that if your parents don't pay their credit card bill, your credit score/report can be negatively affected. (This also depends on the bank, however, all the banks I bank with report monthly payment activities on authorized users' credit reports as well. There might be a bank that doesn't.) In terms of credit cards, there is nothing you can do. What you could do as the comments have suggested is either save up money for the equipment you want, or buy something cheaper.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b409376a73e9e3452cdb3b6f3e7c365",
"text": "Using your credit card: Applying for a store credit card: In general it is far better to not buy bigger items like a computer until you can pay cash, or pay for it on credit card (to get reward points) and then pay off the card the next month so you don't pay interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "902d883dc904b70b034cc564964afb21",
"text": "\"Credit Cards typically charge interest on money you borrow from them. They work in one of two ways. Most cards will not charge you any interest if you pay the balance in full each month. You typically have around 25 days (the \"\"grace period\"\") to pay that off. If that's the case, then you will use your credit card without any cost to yourself. However, if you do not pay it in full by that point, then you will owe 19.9% interest on the balance, typically from the day you charged the payment (so, retroactively). You'll also immediately begin owing interest on anything else you charge - typically, even if you do then pay the next month the entire balance on time. It's typically a \"\"daily\"\" rate, which means that the annual rate (APR) is divided into its daily rate (think the APR divided by 365 - though it's a bit different than that, since it's the rate which would be 19.9% annualized when you realize interest is paid on interest). Say in your case it's 0.05% daily - that means, each day, 0.05% is added to your balance due. If you charged $1000 on day one and never made a payment (but never had to - ignore penalties here), you'd owe $1199 at the end of the year, paying $199 interest (19.9*1000). Note that your interest is calculated on the daily balance, not on your actual credit limit - if you only charge $100, you'd owe $19.90 interest, not $199. Also note that this simplifies what they're actually doing. They often use things like \"\"average daily balance\"\" calculations and such to work out actual interest charged; they tend to be similar to what I'm describing, but usually favor the bank a bit (or, are simpler to calculate). Finally: some credit cards do not have a grace period. In the US, most do, but not all; in other countries it may be less common. Some simply charge you interest from day one. As far as \"\"Standard Purchases\"\", that means buying services or goods. Using your credit card for cash advances (i.e., receiving cash from an ATM), using those checks they mail you, or for cash-like purchases (for example, at a casino), are often under a different scheme; they may have the same rate, or a different rate. They likely incur interest from the moment cash is produced (no grace period), and they may involve additional fees. Never use cash advances unless you absolutely cannot avoid it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a0ca13945e1a243ff19881143e14582",
"text": "\"I gather from your mention of \"\"stamp duty\"\" that you're in Britain? I'm only familiar with US cards, but for them I can't see that there is any reason (other than a lack of self-discipline) not to use a credit card wherever possible, especially these days. 1) There are plenty of cards with no annual fee. 2) You get anywhere from 1-5% discount/cash back on purchases. 3) Many will give you sign-up bonuses, and a year or more of zero interest. (So you put that money in your investment account, and odds are you make a profit on it.) 4) Even after the introductory 0% interest period, you get on average about a month of 0% interest between purchase and due date, during which period the money can be earning interest for you. I've made a good many thousands of dollars over the years doing this. Again, the only drawback I can see is that you may not have the self-discipline to pay off the accounts before they start charging interest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e48693bde300c48d90869879df069e1",
"text": "\"I don't think it really matters, my understanding is that as a sole trader there is no distinction between your personal and business tax affairs. The distinction between your personal and business account is mainly for your own personal benefit to make it easier to differentiate between \"\"wages\"\" and retained earnings. If you want to maintain this distinction with regard to tax then you need to somehow differentiate between tax paid on your \"\"wage\"\" and tax paid on retained earnings. You could then either make two payments, or pay from either and transfer the difference from the other. Either way, it's just a matter of perspective rather than something with a physical difference.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52814076ebf3e11bea5315414acf2240",
"text": "There does not appear to be a way to export the customers and invoices nor a way to import them into another data file if you could export them. However, as said in the comments to your question, your question seems predicated upon the notion that it is 'best practice' to create a new data file each year. This is not considered necessary It should be noted that GnuCash reports should be able to provide accurate year-end data for accounting purposes without zeroing transactions, so book-closing may not be necessary. Leaving books unclosed does mean that account balances in the Chart of Accounts will not show Year-To-Date amounts. - Closing Books GnuCash Wiki The above linked wiki page has several methods to 'close the books' if that is what you want to do - but it is not necessary. There is even a description on how to create a new file for the new year which only talks about setting up the new accounts and transactions - nothing about customers, invoices etc. Note that you can 'close the books' without creating a new data file. In summary: you cannot do it; but you don't need to create a new file for the new year so you don't need to do it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dbbf60697dd4a57ca042e106be705038
|
Where can I find the current price to rent ratio of the locality of my interest?
|
[
{
"docid": "2d918de5487dc487d2778b3f08eaca73",
"text": "\"Chris, this is an arbitrage question with a twist: you cannot treat the location you want to live objectively. For example, why not SoCal instead of Texas? Yes, SoCal's expensive but what if you account for the weather? This question is very interesting for me personally: something I am going to focus on myself, soon, as well. To the question at hand: it's very hard to get a close estimate of the price from a single source, say, a website. The cost of a house is always negotiable and there's no sticker price, and there begins your problems. However, there are some publicly available information which websites aggregate, see: http://www.city-data.com/ Also, some heuristics might help: Rent is at-least as expensive as the monthly mortgage, (property) taxes, HOA fees, etc. Smart people have told me this, and this also makes sense to me as the landlord is in this business to make some money after all. However, there are also other hidden costs of home ownership that I am not aware of in details (and which I craftily sidestepped in my \"\"etc\"\" above) that could put a rental to be \"\"cheaper\"\". One example that comes to mind is you as a tenant get to complain if the washer-dryer misbehaves and demand the landlord get you a new one (see how you wouldn't make a sound were you to own it however) Such a website to gauge rentals: http://www.rentometer.com/ Houses cost more where the median income is more. Again, you cannot be objective about this because smart people like to live around smart people (and pay for the privilege). Turn again to http://www.city-data.com/ to get this information Better weather is more expensive than not so good weather. In the article you linked, notice the ratio of homes in California. Yes, I know of people who sold off their family ranches in Vancouver and Seattle to buy homes in Orange Country. In short, there is a lot of information you would have to gather from multiple sources, and even then never be sure that you did your best! This also includes arbitrage, as you would like to \"\"come out ahead\"\" and while you are doing your research (and paying your rent), you want to invest your \"\"savings\"\" in instruments where you earn more than what you would have saved in a mortgage, etc. I would very much like to be refuted on every point and my answer be edited and \"\"made better\"\" as I need the same answers as you do :-D Feel free to comment, edit your question etc and I will act on feedback and help both of us (and future readers) out!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f9b2b463faf9513e4ff7d222ccc92672",
"text": "You can use www.etfdb.com and search on geography.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faafc603fc4fdc218a969f17936f5d17",
"text": "Our two rentals have yielded 8.5% over the past two years (averaged). That is net, after taxes, maintenance, management, vacancy, insurance, interest. I am only interested in cash flow - expenses / original investment. If you aren't achieving at least 4.5-5% net on your original investment you probably could invest elsewhere and earn a better return on a similar risk profile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3334227abf9c8af22039391d71c17d55",
"text": "\"As others have pointed out, you can't just pick a favorable number and rent for that amount. If you want to rent out your house, you must rent it for a value that a renter would agree to. For example there is a house on my street that has been looking for renters for 3 years. They want $2,500 a month. This covers their mortgage, and a little bit more for taxes and repairs. It has never been rented once. Other homes in my neighborhood rent for around $1,000 a month. There is no value to a renter in renting a house that is $1,500 more then a similar house 2 doors down. Now what you can look at is cost mitigation. So I am using data from my area. Houses in my part of Florida must have A/C running in the wet months to keep the moisture from ruining the house. This can easily be $100 a month (usually more). The city requires you to have water service, even when not occupied, though the cost is very small. Same with waste, which is a flat fee: $20 a month. Yard watering is a must during the dry months (if you want to keep grass). Let's say that comes out to $50 a month, year round. Pest control is a must, especially if your house has wooden parts (like floors or a roof). Even modest pest control is $25 a month. Property taxes around $240 a month. Let's say your mortgage is around $1,000 a month. That means to sit empty your house would cost $1,435. Now if you were to rent the house, a lot of those costs could \"\"go away\"\" by becoming the tenants' responsibility. Your cost of the house sitting full would be $1,240. Let's pad that with 10% for repairs and go with $1,364. Now let's assume you can rent for $1,000 a month. Keep in mind all these rates are about right for my area but will change based on size and amenities. Your choices are let the house sit empty for $1,435 a month or fill it and only \"\"lose\"\" $240 a month. Keep in mind that in both cases you will be gaining equity. So what a lot of people do around here is rent out their houses and pay the $240 as an investment. For every $240 they pay, they get $1,000 in equity (well, interest and fees aside, but you get the point). It's not a money maker for them right now, but as they get older two things happen. That $240 a month \"\"payment\"\" pays off their mortgage, so they end up owning the house outright. Then that $240 a month payment turns to extra income. And at some point, their rental can be sold for (let's guess) $400,000. SO they paid $86,400 and got back $400,000. All the while they are building equity in their rental and in the home they are living in. The important take away from this, is that it's not a source of income for the landlord as much as it is an investment. You will likely not be able to rent a house for more then a mortgage + costs + taxes, but it does make a good investment vehicle.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eae5196212863adcafc2e7e4646f6cf8",
"text": "first, let me reiterate what everyone else is saying about rental rates having nothing to do with your expenses. you should charge market rates. slightly higher if you want better tenants and slightly lower if you want to avoid prolonged vacancy. you can determine market rates by finding similar properties in your area and seeing what they are asking for rent. you will need to adjust for location, square footage, number of bathrooms, etc. now that that is out of the way, here is a quick checklist of expenses that you will need to calculate and/or estimate for your specific property in order to decide if you should rent or sell: if you add up all of the above expenses and it's more than the market rates for rent, you should sell. if the above expenses are below the market rates, then you need to consider if the profit margin is enough to justify the hassle and the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0044afa440570181fb34cb566eaab389",
"text": "I found the zephyr database, which does the job. Nonetheless if someone knows other (open) sources, be welcome to answer.",
"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": "294a49c90910b8cd894159827d7b7d5d",
"text": "Well, I am an investor/ Lessor under DHA properties. Oflate, DHA lost it identity as a Govt agency and try to imitate a worst (not the best) real eastate agent. Every year rental valuation is a drama or waste of time and money to lessor. They pull down the rent by 10 to 22% and ask for a secondary valuation for no reasons. They don't even agree with market evidence and start bullying or black mailing tactics to force you to aceept a below market rent or the threat of third review , a very expensive review shared 50% by lessor and rest the poor tax payers! The thir review also badly influenced by DHA by submitting biased valuations and thereby destroying the independence of valuation. The API appointed valuer neither follow the DHA gudie nor the API guide and also ignore the market reality and take the average rent for the area. You also losse 14 to 18% as management fees paid to DHA. Selling also a problem and its high time the CWG and the Minster in charge of the DHA must institute an independent investigation to expose the potential nexus between the valuers and the DHA and how the lessor (a self funded retiree, pensioners and others). I already lodged a complaint with Ombudsman and waiting for a reply. There are 14 Lessors all in a Private street (Only DHA leased property in that street) near 213 Ray rd Epping 2121 that are leased to DHA for more than 10 years. Please note most of those Lessors almost lost $10000 per year because DHA under cut the rent to them when they paid me the market rent for many years. DHA by mistake send the rent paid to all. We have called for the details of rent paid to all the 14 lessors in that private street from 2008 todate under the Freedom of Information Act and waiting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "161d32c11caf8d199a69bc1f6f0a40e0",
"text": "There could be a number of reasons for a rent increase. The only information I can offer is how I calculate what rent I will charge. The minimum I would ever charge per unit (Mortgage payment + Water) / Number of units This number is the minimum because it's what I need to keep afloat. Keep in mind these are ballpark numbers The target rent ((Mortgage payment + Water) / Number of units)*1.60 I mark up the price 60% for a few reasons. First, the building needs a repair budget. That money has to come from somewhere. Second, I want to put away for my next acquisition and third I want to make a profit. These get me close to my rental price but ultimately it depends on your location and the comparables in the area. If my target rent is 600 a month but the neighbors are getting 700-800 for the same exact unit I might ask more. It also depends on the types of units. Some of my buildings, all of the units are identical. Other buildings half of the units are bigger than the other half so clearly I wouldn't charge a equal amount for them. Ultimately you have to remember we're not in the game to lose money. I know what my renters are going to pay before I even put an offer in on a building because that's how I stay in business. It might go up over the years but it will always outpace my expenses for that property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61231aff72e9c22612339590683fd1d6",
"text": "Google 'information ratio'. It is better suited to what you want than the Sharpe or Sortino ratios because it only evaluates the *excess* return you get from your investment, ie. return from your investment minus the return from a benchmark investment. The benchmark here could be an index like the S&P500.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "133154f62f8331a8df866bfc4aab2f0b",
"text": "\"The trade-off seems to be quite simple: \"\"How much are you going to get if you sell it\"\" against \"\"How much are you going to get if you rent it out\"\". Several people already hinted that the rental revenue may be optimistic, I don't have anything to add to this, but keep in mind that if someone pays 45k for your apartment, the net gains for you will likely be lower as well. Another consideration would be that the value of your apartment can change, if you expect it to rise steadily you may want to think twice before selling. Now, assuming you have calculated your numbers properly, and a near 0% opportunity cost: 45,000 right now 3,200 per year The given numbers imply a return on investment of 14 years, or 7.1%. Personal conclusion: I would be surprised if you can actually get a 3.2k expected net profit for an apartment that rents out at 6k per year, but if you are confident the reward seems to be quite nice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d8b09907e8aefd522de4e0842820320",
"text": "That interesting. It seems like an apt building could use that for its residents. I think I saw the amount quoted at $470/month, but since there isn't a market it's probably speculative to say anything about what it would cost a consumer or group of consumers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27ea2555942f63ee9fc3405229350cb3",
"text": "\"If it is true that for the same price, you could get a better place (or that for a lower price you could get an equivalent place), you should do some soul-searching to decide what monetary value you would place on the hassle of moving to such an alternative. You should then negotiate aggressively for a rent that is no more than the rent of the alternative place plus your hassle costs, and if the landlord does not meet your price, you should refuse to renew your lease, and instead move out to an alternative. (Of course, you might also want to double-check your research to ensure you really can get such a good alternative, and that your new landlords won't try a similar bait-and-switch and force you to move again in a year.) Barring local ordinances such as rent control laws, I don't think it's worth it to worry about whether the increase is \"\"normal\"\". If you can get a better deal somewhere else, then what your landlords are asking is too much. If you have a good relationship with them on a personal level you may be able to tell them this in a nice way and thus get them to make a more reasonable offer. Otherwise, the landlords will learn that their expectations are unreasonable when all their tenants move out to cheaper places.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba2dda2440aab1b0940b723689abe424",
"text": "I don't like it using percentages makes no sense. Find out what market value is for rent and pay 1/2 of that to your partner, adjust annually. You partner should be protected from inflation if he is going to invest in real estate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea1d8767ba8369927d29e6af4f099ce1",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.housingfinance.com/news/us-losing-low-rent-units_o) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The lower end of the rental housing market continues to lose ground, according to the new The State of the Nation&#039;s Housing report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. > In examining the threats to the affordable housing supply, the report finds that housing created under the low-income housing tax credit is a concern. > Looking ahead, being intentional and being committed about developing affordable housing will be critical to addressing the rental housing crisis, said Terri Ludwig, president and CEO of Enterprise Community Partners, during a webcast held to discuss the report&#039;s findings. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6hw6os/us_losing_lowrent_units_despite_a_slight/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~146856 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*: **housing**^#1 **rent**^#2 **units**^#3 **more**^#4 **households**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b91d9fa21e5371a5211d87591ab49f95",
"text": "\"Average rent rates will typically rise and fall, and are market-dependent just like real estate. In the short term, a collapse in housing like the one we saw in 2008 can induce a spike in rental costs as people walk away or get foreclosed on, and move back into apartments. That then tends to self-adjust, as the people who had been in the apartments find a deal on a foreclosed house and move out. However, one thing I've seen to be near-constant in the apartment business is that a landlord will offer you a deal to get in, then increase the rent on you from year to year until you get fed up and move. This is a big reason I didn't have the same address for two years in a row until I bought my house. The landlord is basically betting that you won't want to deal with the hassle of moving, and so will pay the higher rent rate, even if, when you do the math, it makes more sense to move even to maintain the same rent rate. Eventually though, you do get fed up, look around, find the next good deal, and move, \"\"resetting\"\" your rent rate. I have never, not once in my life, seen or heard of any landlord offering a drop in rent as a \"\"loyalty\"\" move to keep you from going somewhere else. It's considered part of the game; retailers will price match, but most service providers (landlords, but also utility providers) expect a large amount of \"\"churn\"\" in their customer base as people shop around. It averages out.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
663e6b59f23872450d20c612db181f0e
|
Any reason to be cautious of giving personal info to corporate fraud departments?
|
[
{
"docid": "76082c0b98ca9ccbc1df18da185d027f",
"text": "I can't address the psychology of trust involved in your question, but here are some common sense guidelines for dealing with your issue. Make sure you know who you are talking to. Call the company you need to speak to via a publicly available phone number. An email or something you got in a letter might be from a different source. If you use a website, you should be sure you are on the correct website. Keep careful records. Make good notes of each phone call and keep all emails and letters forever. Note the time, name and/or ID of the person you spoke to and numbers called in addition to keeping notes on what actions should be done. Keep your faxing transmission receipts and shipping tracking numbers too. If you are nervous, ask them why they want the info. The fraud department should be able to explain it to you. For example, they probably want your social because that is how your credit report is identified. If they are going to fix a credit report, they will need a social. It is doubtful they would have a good explanation why they need your mother's maiden name. Ask for secure transmission, or confirm they have it. Postal mail isn't so secure, but I'll go out on a limb and say most fax machines today are not really fax machines, but software that deals in PDFs. At some point you will have to realize you will have to transmit something. No method is perfect, but you can limit your exposure. Help them do their jobs. If you are (understandably) nervous, consider their motivations: corporate profit. BUT that could very well mean not running afoul of the law and (with any luck) treating customers the best way they know to earn business. If you stymy the fraud department, how can they help you? If the ID theft was serious enough, document your issue for future law enforcement so you getting pulled over for speeding doesn't result in you going to jail for whatever crime the other person did. Perhaps the fraud department you are dealing with can assist there. Finally, while you work with fraud departments to clear up your name and account, work on the other end to limit future damage. Freeze your credit. See if you bank or credit card have monitoring. Use CreditKarma.com or a similar if you cannot find a free service. (Please don't ever pay for credit monitoring.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "92c0079346d0ded3ed163d22572d3b90",
"text": "You are describing a corporation. You can set up a corporation to perform business, but if you were using the money for any personal reasons the courts could Pierce the corporate veil and hold you personally liable. Also, setting up a corporation for purely personal reasons is fraud.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1338c98be810a7589d60fb24c4903d79",
"text": "When an someone as esteemed and smart as Donald Knuth tells you the chequing system is busted it's time to close your cheque account, or I guess live with the associated risk. Answer to question, yes your account information can be used to commit fraud on you via your bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a1c8d73a18e912dd13bdb6d7e880bba",
"text": "I think that the person that stole the wallet is up for the credit cards and stuff with money but less likely he/she will be smart enough too use your identity, and even if they do you'll find out somehow now or later!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db3869d3bbe9694441d0f24d4c98a15b",
"text": "\"As long as there is nothing more to this story you aren't sharing, you can expect those bills you paid to come back (you will have to pay them again later). You can be pretty certain that the name he gave you was fake, and that the bank account you paid your bills with was not his. I would not try to do anything at all with the information he gave you because first it is not his, and second your name is already tied to this bank account via your utility bills. In other words that would be illegal and you are already on the list of suspects. I would say that if you don't call the police they probably won't call you. The police often times do not even waste their time when somebody's light bill was paid with fraudulent financial information or whatever. I have actually seen similar situations play out a number of times and the police have never gotten involved. Disclaimer: I probably don't live where you live, and I'm not an attorney. But I do know what I am talking about so here's my advice (I know you didn't ask for advice but you probably might benefit from it). Let that money go, sometimes people get you. Take it as a lesson and move on. If you do end up having to have contact with the police and you don't already know, they will lie to you and try to trick you into acting in a way that is not in your self interest. But then you kind of look guilty if you won't even talk to them, and in this case you did not do anything illegal. So if I was you I would probably just think of where I might be incriminating myself by telling the truth, if there were any parts of my story that would raise any flags, and think of how I would smooth those out ahead of time. Also for your personal information you do not need to have a sophisticated understanding of computers to do anything you described, if you are familiar with operating a web browser you can do all types of stuff with Paypal. Most people that give off the vibe \"\"criminal\"\" are not going to be able to make any money conning people and would probably have given it up before they got to you. The information you have is not like the most valuable stuff ever but somebody that knew what they were doing could use it to take money out of your account, and if they had that and then could get a few other pieces they could really mess up your life. So that's part of why they say to be careful, any one piece is maybe not so valuable but if you are loose with everything you will probably have a shitty few weeks at some points in the future. \"\"no aa\"\" lol\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6dedcdbbf03e9a2de3000237c184bcc1",
"text": "It's very, very unlikely that you received a phone call at work with an incorrect birth date from an actual lending company that thinks it loaned you any money. It's much more likely that you received a phone call at work from a collections agency that would have bought some loan from the aforementioned agency for pennies on the dollar. They would have been hunting around trying to find someone with your name who was born thirteen years earlier. It's even more likely that this is some sort of phishing scam. If you're worried, you can check your credit rating, but it is likely that you can safely ignore the situation. If they call back, ask for thorough details about the credit card. If they're a real collections agency and for some reason they won't leave you alone, IIRC the most surefire course of action is to hire a lawyer to send them a cease-and-desist letter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "860266c5f091ca5d690561f10b47edb1",
"text": "\"Here are a handful of measures I take myself: I check my credit reports once in a while and look for anything out of the ordinary. If somebody calls me on the telephone claiming to be from my bank or credit card company, utility, etc. I ask for their number, check it, and call them back. I don't give personal information to people merely claiming to be from a place I do business with. I never fill out ballots for free contests. Most of the time these are scams. When I get a call telling me \"\"you won a free cruise\"\" for a ballot I supposedly filled out at the mall, I say they're lying through their teeth. For excitement, I'll sometimes buy a lotto ticket instead. I'm careful when I surf the web. I don't give my personal information to web sites I can't trust. If they look the least bit shady, I'm out. Also, I use different passwords at different web sites. I avoid using a password from a public terminal, but when I must, I change my password soon after. I'm careful when I download software. I don't install anything I didn't get from a trusted source. I pay for software when necessary, so finding a trusted source is not hard. But, I've heard of people who – to save a buck – would download a pirated application from a shady warez site only to be \"\"gifted\"\" a trojan horse key logging or other spyware along with it. When I no longer need a bill, receipt, statement, etc. or any document containing personal information, I shred it, and I use a shredder that does a micro-cut, not just a strip- or cross-cut. The micro-cut remains go in the green bin with wet and yucky organic waste. When I no longer need a hard drive, I use a secure wiping tool like Darik's Boot & Nuke before reusing. If the drive isn't worth reusing, I'll wipe first then take apart with my Torx screwdriver. Once I have the drive platter, I scratch the heck out of it. Remains go to the community recycling depot. That's all I can think of right now; I probably missed a few :-) So, what do others do? I'm curious, too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aa8f1f8a428385791c57a0123eed623",
"text": "All the items listed are required for International Wire transfer. In wrong hands this info along with other info can cause issues. Most of the times you trust the person with this info and hence is less cause to worry. So the key is if you don't trust, don't give the details. Use alternatives like; Best open an account for receiving funds. Share the details, once the funds are received move it to an account where the details have not been shared. Alternatively paypal or other such services can help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c682ef5283bb51dbcdf86854fba99e8",
"text": "Yes, but note that some credit card companies let you create virtual cards--you can define how much money is on them and how long they last. If you're worried about a site you can use such a card to make the payment, then get rid of the virtual number so nobody can do dirty deeds with it. In practice, however, companies that do this are going to get stomped on hard by the credit card companies--other than outright scams it basically does not happen. (Hacking is another matter--just pick up the newspaper. It's not exactly unusual to read of hackers getting access to credit card information that they weren't supposed to have access to in the first place.) So long as you deal with a company that's been around for a while the risk is trivial.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c96289c6f10cf5dd3412d213afde0f90",
"text": "Usually the most significant risk scenarios here are: Third parties can abuse your routing/account numbers to initiate debits, but this is a type of fraud that is easily traced. It can happen, but it is more likely that it would be a scenario where you were specifically targeted vs. the victim of some random fraud. Defending against someone who is specifically going after you is very difficult, especially if you don't know about it. Your SSN isnt used for the bank transfer, you are providing it so that the entity making the payments can report on payments to you for tax purposes. If you are truly worried about this type of scenario, I suggest setting up a dedicated savings account for the purpose of receiving these payments and then sweeping (either manually or automatically) the funds into another account. Most stock brokers will allow you to automate this, and most banks will let you do this manually.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30c431a4738f2c89c49acec373d3c91a",
"text": "\"Every legitimate claim I've filed regarding fraudulent charges on my card includes signing a legal document. If your \"\"friend\"\" completes such a document and you can verify that it is untrue, he's in deeper trouble than you. Unfortunately, if he's successful in filing a claim that is later proven to be fraudulent, it puts your account in a poor status until it's fully cleared. Even then, corporate inertia may result in longer duration inaccurate information. Once you've cleared the fraudulent claim, you'll want to contact your credit agency to ensure they are provided with correct and proper documentation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e987107dbb4125793c6317940aa88a4",
"text": "\"It's anonymous/automated. They don't know who you are, just that customer x1a bought y. If your name isnt given to employees \"\"your\"\" privacy isnt being volated because the dont know its \"\"you.\"\" I imagine the government justifies their intrusions on our digital privacy the same way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7105af373db635e924f9f01e352fc7d4",
"text": "You don't have to provide your personal home address per se. You can provide a legal address where Companies house can send across paper correspondence to. Companies house legally requires an address because directors are liable to their shareholders(even if you are the only shareholder) and to stop them from disappearing just like that with shareholder's money. Moreover your birth date will also be visible on websites which provide comapnies information. You can ask these websites to stop sharing your personal information. Every company must have a registered office within the UK which is the official legal address of the company. It must be a physical address (i.e. not a PO Box without a physical location) as Companies House will use this address to send correspondence to. To incorporate a private limited company you need at least one director, who has to be over 16 years of age. You may also have a secretary, but this is optional. The information you will need to supply for each officer includes: You may also have officers that are companies or firms, and for these you will need to supply the company or firm name, its registered office address, details of the legal form of the company, where it is registered and if applicable its registration number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "306bb354eb7a9ffb5fae3393a9007d2d",
"text": "\"Others have already commented on the impact of anything which dissuades merchants from raising possible breaches, so I won't dwell on that. Maybe we need stronger legislation, maybe we don't, but it doesn't change today's answer. Often it works the other way around to what you might expect - rather than the merchant noticing and notifying Visa/MC/others, Visa/MC/others spot patterns of suspicious activity (example 1). I don't have any data on the relative numbers of who is being notified/notifying between merchants and payment processors, but at the point when your card is identified as compromised there's no reason to suppose that an individual merchant in the traditional sense has been compromised, let alone identified. In fact because there's a fast moving investigation it could even be a false alarm that led to your card getting cancelled. Conversely it could be a hugely complex multinational investigation which would be jeopardised. It's simply not safe to assume that simply \"\"brand X\"\" has been compromised, therefore everything \"\"brand X\"\" knows about you is also compromised: Furthermore there's no reason to assume the merchant has even admitted to, or discovered the root cause. MC/Visa/Banks, at the point at which they're cancelling cards simply can't say (at least not in a way that might expensively backfire involving lots of lawyers) because the standard of proof needed to go on record blaming someone is simply not yet met. So: yes it's common that you aren't told anything for all of the above reasons. And of course if you really want to find out more you may have some success with your local data protection legislation and formally make a subject access request (or local equivalent) to see what that brings back. Be sure to do it in writing, to the official address of both mastercard and your bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91d1802b16c0cb4b7467d2137e0e4800",
"text": "Probably because large chains can absorb the loss from fraud better than small stores do. Thus, small stores want to ensure that the person holding the card is the same as the name on the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3db2fd1aa8c7f9b4020e369c5924214",
"text": "So could someone working at your bank directly. Of at your HR department at work. Most of the wait staff at the restaurant I ate at technically had access to my credit card and could steal money. While you are at work, someone could break into your house and steal your stuff too. The point is, Mint and everything else is a matter of the evaluating the risk. Since you already understand the vulnerability (they have your accounts) and you know the risk (they could steal your money) what are the chances it happens? 1.) Mint will make lots more money if it doesn't happen, so it benefits Intuit to pay their employees well and put in safeguards to prevent theft. Mint.com is on your side even if a specific employee isn't. 2.) You have statements and such, so you can independently evaluate mint. I do not just trust mint with my stuff, I check info in Quicken and at the bank sites themselves. I don't do them all equally, but I will catch problems. 3.) Laws mean that if theft happens, you will have the opportunity to be made whole. If you are worried about theft, don't trust other people or generally get a bad feeling, don't do it. If you check your accounts online with the same computer you log into Facebook with, them I would suggest it doesn't bother you. You might have legal or business reasons to be more adverse to risk then me. However, just because somebody could steal your money, I personally don't consider it an acceptable risk compared to the reward. I will also be one of the first people to be robbed, I am not unrealistic.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
87bcf532188c3605ff1ac62bc427b828
|
How Do I Fix Excess Contribution Withdrawl
|
[
{
"docid": "92c2fe0fdd0104d5307b60266a6202c8",
"text": "\"You didn't have a situation of \"\"excess contribution\"\". If you have proof that someone in Fidelity actually told you what you said, you might try to recover some of your losses through a lawsuit. However, their first (and main) defense would be that they're not in the business of providing tax advice, and it is your problem that you asked random person a tax question, and then acted on an incorrect answer. By the way, that only goes to say that anything you might read here you should, as well, take with a grain of salt. The only one who can give you a tax advice is a licensed tax professional. I explained it in details in my blog post, but in short - it is either an EA (Enrolled Agent, with the IRS credentials), or a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or Attorney licensed in your State. Back to your question - \"\"Excess Contribution\"\" to a IRA is when you contribute in excess to the limits imposed. For Traditional IRA in 2012 the limit was $5000. You contributed $4000 - this means that you were not in excess. There's nothing they can \"\"correct\"\", the 1099-R you got seems to be correct and in order. What you did have was a case of non-deductible contribution. Non-deductible contribution to your IRA should have been reported to the IRS on form 8606. Non-deductible contribution creates basis in your IRA. Withdrawals from your IRA are prorated to the relation of your basis to your total value, and the taxable amount is determined based on that rate. It is, also, calculated using form 8606. So in short - you should have filed a form 8606 with your 2012 tax return declaring non-deductible IRA and creating $4000 basis, and then form 8606 with your 2013 tax return calculating which portion of the $4000 you withdrew is non-taxable. If your total IRA (in all accounts) was that $4000 - then nothing would be taxable. Talk to a tax adviser, you might need to amend your 2012 return (or send the 2012 form separately, if possible), and then do some math on your 2013 return. If 60 days haven't passed, you might want to consider depositing the $4000 in a Roth IRA and perform what is called \"\"Conversion\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e20fcec6c8c6bffd7c63b45263466c2",
"text": "\"I think there are several issues here. First, there's the contribution. As littleadv said, there is no excess contribution. Excess contribution is only if you exceed the contribution limit. The contribution limit for Traditional IRAs does not depend on how high your income goes or whether you have a 401(k). It's the deduction limit that may depend on those things. Not deducting it is perfectly legitimate, and is completely different than an \"\"excess contribution\"\", which has a penalty. Second, the withdrawal. You are allowed to withdraw contributions made during a year, plus any earnings from those contributions, before the tax filing deadline for the taxes of that year (which is April 15 of the following year, or even up to October 15 of the following year), and it will be treated as if the contribution never happened. No penalties. The earnings will be taxed as regular income (as if you put it in a bank account). That sounds like what you did. So the withdrawal was not an \"\"early withdrawal\"\", and the 1099-R should reflect that (what distribution code did they put?). Third, even if (and it does not sound like the case, but if) it doesn't qualify as a return of contributions before the tax due date as described above (maybe you withdrew it after October 15 of the following year), as littleadv mentioned, your contribution was a non-deductible contribution, and when withdrawing it, only the earnings portion (which after such a short time should only be a very small part of the distribution) would be subject to tax and penalty.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "44a3e24f5e05ecd5ec3c1cb76d7ba92e",
"text": "An answer to this question Can I get a rebate after using my HSA? discusses how to redeposit money accidentally withdrawn. The link to https://www.americafirst.com/about/help/faq/health-savings.cfm in the answer also includes this FAQ: What if I contribute into my HSA more than my yearly limit allows? If nothing is done about this excess contribution then there will be an excise tax of 6 percent assessed by the IRS. You are able to avoid this penalty as long as you distribute the excess before the tax filing deadline including any extensions. Any of our many America First branches can help you fill out the appropriate paperwork to get this taken care of so you avoid this tax. contact the institution where the funds are deposited and ask for help reversing the deposit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae3d1e7f2ee5a22c82850e4704b0d8d6",
"text": "\"Besides what others have mentioned, another thing to watch out for is the tax withholding on withdrawal. If it's a Traditional IRA, they will probably withhold a certain percentage on non-qualified withdrawals. I am not sure if you can ask them not to withhold. I don't remember the percentage, and it varies by state, but let's assume it is 20%. That means that you only receive 80% of the withdrawal amount when you take it out. However, when you deposit the money to complete the \"\"rollover\"\", you need to give them 100% of the withdrawal. That means (assuming the 20% withholding) you need to fork out cash equal to 125% of what you received in cash, within 60 days! That's like several hundred percent APR and hard to meet unless you are certain of receiving a large payment within the time period. And if you forget about this, and you just deposit the same amount that you received (80% of the withdrawal), the remainder (20% of the withdrawal) will count as an early withdrawal, with all the taxes and penalty. So what happens to the 20% withheld that you never received but had to pay anyway? Well, the government has it. It will count as tax paid on your tax return, so it will increase your refund/decrease the amount you owe, but that means you are out that money until tax time! (Unless you decrease the withholding on your salary in the rest of the year to compensate.) If it's a Roth IRA withdrawal on the contribution, there is generally no withholding, so you don't have to worry about the above. (But there is no penalty on withdrawal of Roth IRA contribution anyway.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36a804f76053758e3c670904a4eed573",
"text": "\"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \"\"matching\"\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \"\"excess contributions\"\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \"\"adjust\"\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \"\"matching\"\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\", but that might be a harder change to get.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eb7d6d80f8ec378980ab8a4fa22e149",
"text": "\"You are not the only one with this problem. When Intuit changed their pricing and services structure in 2015 a lot of people got angry, facing larger fees and having to go through an annoying upgrade just to get the same functionality (such as Schedule D, capital gains). You have several options: (1) Forget Turbo Tax and just use paper forms. That is what I do. Paper is reliable. (2) Use forms mode in Turbo Tax. Of course, that may be even more complicated than simply filing out paper forms. (3) Use a different service. If your income is below $64,000 the IRS has a free electronic filing service. Other online vendors have full taxes services for less than Turbo Tax. (4) Add the amount to ordinary income. Technically, as long as you report the income, you cannot be penalized, so if you add the capital gain to your ordinary income, then you have paid taxes on the income. Even if they send you a letter, you can send an answer that you added it to ordinary income and that will satisfy them. Of course you pay a higher rate on your $26 if you do that. (5) If you are in the 15% or below income bracket you are exempt from capital gains, and you can omit it. Don't believe the nervous Nellies who say the IRS will burn your house down if you don't report $26 in capital gains. Penalties are assessed on the percentage of TAXES you did not pay (0.5% penalty per month). Since 0.5% of $0 is $0 your penalty is $0. The IRS knows this. The IRS does not send out assessment letters for $0. (6) Even if you are above the 15% bracket, there is likelihood it is still a no-tax situation (see 5 above). (7) Worst case scenario: you are making a million dollars per year and you omit your $26 capital gains from your return. The IRS will send you an assessment letter for about $10. You can then send them a separate check or money order to pay it. In all honesty I have omitted documented tax items, like taxable interest, that the IRS knows about many times and never gotten an assessment letter. Once I made a serious math error on my return and they sent me an assessment letter, which I just paid, end of story. And that was for a lot more than $26. The technical verbiage for something like this in IRS lingo is CP-2000, underreported income. As you can see from this official IRS web page, basically what they do is guess how much they think you owe and send you a bill. Then you pay it. If you do so in time, you don't even get a 0.5% interest penalty on your $6.75 owed or whatever it is. (8) Go hog wild. As long as you are risking an assessment on your $26, why not go hog wild and just let the IRS compute all your taxes for you? Make a copy of your income statements, then mail them to the IRS with a letter that says, \"\"Hi, I am Mr. Odinson, my SSN is XXX-XX-XXXX. My address is XYZ. I am unable to compute my taxes due to a confused state of mind. I am hereby requesting a tax assessment for the 2016 tax year.\"\" Make sure you sign and date the letter. In all probability they will compute the full assessment and send you a bill (or refund).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2368a6a6d2c21902782f59fdc6929bff",
"text": "It's not your money. What does your wife think of this? You know, the withdrawal is subject to full tax at your marginal rate as well as a 10% penalty. That's quite a price to pay, don't do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52456dcf90b012d6a5124b3306c93288",
"text": "I wrote an article about this a while ago with detailed instructions, so I'll link to it here. Here's a snippet about how to use the Roth IRA loophole and report it properly: You don’t have any Traditional/Rollover IRA at all. You deposit up to the yearly maximum (currently $5500) into a traditional IRA. In your case, you re-characterized, which means you essentially deposited. The fact that it lost money may help you later if you have extra amounts in Traditional IRA. You convert your traditional IRA to become Roth IRA ($5500 change designation from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA). You fill IRS form 8606 and attach it to your yearly tax return, no tax due. You have a fully funded Roth IRA account. If you have amounts in the Traditional IRA in excess to what you contributed last year - it becomes a bit more complicated and you need to prorate. See my article for a detailed example. On the form 8606 you fill the numbers as they are. You deposited to IRA 5500, you converted 5100, your $400 loss is lost (unless you have more money in IRA from elsewhere). If you completely distribute your IRA, you can deduct the $400 on your Schedule A, if you itemize.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "926bbb14f14cc331260a220cf824cfef",
"text": "Apply as many deductions as you are legally entitled to. Those are taxes you may never ever pay. Then turn around and put any more monies above the maximum retirement contributions into a taxable account. But this time invest in tax efficient investments. For example, VTI or SPY will incur very minimal taxes and when you withdraw, it will be at lower tax rate (based on current tax laws). Just as you diversify your investments, you also want to diversify your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4c0d2d16b3592e2800408a3cb76c312",
"text": "\"Yes, you can withdraw the excess contribution (or actually any amount you contributed for 2015, not necessarily an excess), plus earnings from that withdrawn contribution, by April 15, and not incur a penalty for the excess contribution. It would count as if you did not contribute that amount at all. The earnings would be taxed as regular income, and the earnings may incur a penalty. Yes, you can \"\"recharacterize\"\" (all or part of) your Roth IRA contribution as a Traditional IRA contribution (or vice versa) by April 15. Recharacterization means you pretend the contribution was originally made as a Traditional IRA contribution, and did not involve Roth IRA at all. (\"\"Conversion\"\" is something very different and can only go from Traditional to Roth, not the other way around.) You are likely not eligible to deduct that Traditional IRA contribution, so you will have to report it as a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution on a 2015 Form 8606 Part 1. Note that after you've recharacterized it as a Traditional IRA contribution, you can also then \"\"convert\"\" that Traditional IRA money to a Roth IRA if you want, achieving the same state as what you have now. Contributing to a Traditional IRA and then converting to a Roth IRA is called a \"\"backdoor Roth IRA contribution\"\"; if you don't have any existing pre-tax money in Traditional IRA or other IRAs, then this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution except with no income limits. When you convert, the earnings you have made since contributing will be taxed as income. If you had done the backdoor originally to begin with (convert right after contributing), you would have had no earnings in between and no tax to pay, but since if you do the conversion now you have waited so long, you are disadvantaged by having to pay tax on the earnings in between. If you convert, you will have to fill out Form 8606 Part 2 for the year you convert (2016).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cbabb8e33466d09fa56112969ee35f3",
"text": "Having worked at a financial institution, this is a somewhat simple, two-part solution. 1) The lendor/vendor/financial institution simply turns off the overdraft protection in all its forms. If no funds are available at a pin-presented transaction, the payment is simply declined. No fee, no overdraft, no mess. 2) This sticking point for a recurring transaction, is that merchants such as Netflix, Gold's Gym etc, CHOOSE to allow payments like this, BECAUSE they are assured they are going to get paid by the financial institution. It prevents them from having issues. Only a gift card will not cost you more money than you put in, BUT I know of several institutions, that too many non-payment periods can cause them to cease doing business with you in the future. TL:DR/IMO If you don't want to pay more than you have, gift cards are the way to go. You can re-charge them whenever you choose, and should you run into a problem, simply buy a new card and start over.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0810b4d6bcf568804606b0a2e51e9c07",
"text": "\"Because it is a Roth IRA (not traditional), you never pay penalties for withdrawing any amount up to your total contributions amount. This is because you are funding it with after tax money. But it sounds like your Roth had $11K in it and you zeroed it out? If you were less than 59.5 years old at the time you made the withdrawal, then if you did not return anything to the account, then you would pay tax on the 6K as income this year at your normal tax rate, plus an additional 10% penalty on that 6K ($600). The 5K in contributions is not taxable. Now, since it's been more than 60 days since you withdrew the money, you cannot put the 6K in earnings back in without paying the penalty, however, you can still contribute $5500 per year (or $6500 if you're over 50). So, you can put back $5500 and then you would only have to pay tax + 10% on the $500 difference. Update: I would recommend talking to an accountant. The fact that you intended to buy a house might provide a mechanism for getting the money back in if you wish. If this was your first house or you have not owned a home in the last 2 years, then you would be considered a \"\"first-time homebuyer\"\" and there is a special exception allowing you to remove 10K without penalty. If you end up not purchasing the home, you have 120 days to contribute those funds back in (treated as a rollover- thank you littleadv for the link to this). As for the final 1K overage, I believe you can count that towards your $5500/yr contribution when you put the entire amount back. Lastly, after digging into this, you have hit so many edge cases with your scenario (6K in earnings being between 5500 for under 50 and 6500 for over 50, it's been 70 days which is between the 60 day normal cutoff and the 120 day extended cutoff for home purchase falling through, and 11K total being just over the 10K cutoff for the same), that I'm starting to wonder if this is some sort of contrived case for an accounting exam!?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49f9299d2fe5b69530f968de19e39bf3",
"text": "\"You withdrew the 'cash' portion, and will pay tax on it. How was the check \"\"another for move remaining to B\"\" issued? Was it payable to you? If so, it's too late, it's your money and the whole account was cashed out. If it was payable to B, you should have had it sent directly to their custodian, are you saying you still have that check? You might need to ask A to reissue the check to you, since you are no longer in the US. I'm not sure if you can roll it to an IRA at this point.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c409489ebe6d78cdb47a180ef534c2ee",
"text": "It is my understanding that there are no penalties for withdrawals and you can withdraw as much as you want as often as you want, including more than once in the same calendar year. Of course, the money must be in cash in the TFSA, which may require you to sell something. That sale may have fees associated with it and possibly penalties for early withdrawal, etc. There is still huge confusion over this, because there are penalties for over-contributions in the calendar year. You contribution limit is still $5,500/year, regardless of how much you may have withdrawn in that same calendar year. So if you withdraw $10K in 2013, you can still only contribute $5,500 in 2013. In 2014, you can contribute $5,500, PLUS you can also contribute an additional $10K for the 2013 withdrawal of $10K. Think of it like 2 separate limits, one for current year, and one a running total of all past withdrawals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "061c88bc7c25999f41e8622fc2c2bd64",
"text": "The rebate amount is a non-qualified distribution: IRS Pub 969 describes how the HSA works: Reporting Distributions on Your Return How you report your distributions depends on whether or not you use the distribution for qualified medical expenses (defined earlier). If you use a distribution from your HSA for qualified medical expenses, you do not pay tax on the distribution but you have to report the distribution on Form 8889. However, the distribution of an excess contribution taken out after the due date, including extensions, of your return is subject to tax even if used for qualified medical expenses. Follow the instructions for the form and file it with your Form 1040 or Form 1040NR. If you do not use a distribution from your HSA for qualified medical expenses, you must pay tax on the distribution. Report the amount on Form 8889 and file it with your Form 1040 or Form 1040NR. If you have a taxable HSA distribution, include it in the total on Form 1040 or Form 1040NR, line 21, and enter “HSA” and the amount on the dotted line next to line 21. You may have to pay an additional 20% tax on your taxable distribution. I looked at several plans regarding how to handle mistaken distributions: example A What if I accidentally use my HSA Visa debit card for a non-qualified expense? To fix this problem, just bring that same amount into any local branch and tell us it was a Mistaken Distribution. We can then put the funds back into your HSA and correct the problem. example B You’re allowed to correct mistaken HSA withdrawals when there is clear and convincing evidence that amounts were distributed from an HSA because of a mistake of fact due to reasonable cause. You can correct the mistake by repaying the withdrawal no later than April 15 following the first year that you knew or should have known that the withdrawal was a mistake. When a correction is made, the mistaken withdrawal does not have to be included in gross income or be subject to the 6 percent additional tax, and the repayment does not count as an excess contribution. If an error is made by SelectAccount in its role as the administrator, SelectAccount will be responsible for taking appropriate corrective action. Check with your plan trustee on their procedure to fix the mistaken withdrawal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5395c1a16754bfaee969990f4e83e29",
"text": "Excise tax on the excess contribution is 6% a year on the amount of the contribution. In addition, gains will be taxable to you. By adding 20K over the limit, you added $1200 to your tax bill. Withdraw it ASAP. Whatever investment you have in your IRA - you can probably buy it (or a comparable) outside of the IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60e5e50342d8e0101f8d1103e5d885d2",
"text": "\"Perhaps you can track your VAT amounts in a Liability account. Using a tax liability account is a common thing in accounting. To do this, when you receive money, split the transaction such that your actual revenue (which you will keep after VAT remittance) goes into an Asset account, and the amount you will eventually have to pay back to the state goes into a Liability account. Later, when you pay the VAT back to the state, your transaction will effectively \"\"pay back\"\" the liability, with one end of your double-entry decreasing the funds in your checking account, and the other end decreasing the funds in your tax liability account. Having said that, I've found that there are many shortcomings in the Cash Flow report, and I'm not sure that using a tax liability account (which I think is the Right Thing to do) will necessarily solve this problem for you...\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f127fa773df66a89ccbb263e84e22b48
|
How can I build up my credit history when I have nearly none
|
[
{
"docid": "b83e9ce022aee6abbedc891366578447",
"text": "You're going to have a huge problem getting approved for anything as long as you have an unpaid bill on your report. Pay it and make sure its reported as paid in full - ASAP. Once that settled, your credit will start to improve slowly. Can't do anything about that, it will take time. You can make the situation improve a bit faster by lending money to yourself and having it reported regularly on your report. How? Easy. Get a secured credit card. What does it mean? You put X amount of money in a CD and the bank will issue you a credit card secured by that CD. Your credit line will be based on the amount in that CD, and you'll probably pay some fees to the bank for the service (~$20-50/year, shop around). You might get lucky and find a secured card without fees, if you look hard enough. Secured cards are reported as revolving credit (just as any other credit card) and are easy to get because the bank doesn't take the risk - you do. If you default on your payments - your CD goes to cover the debt, and the card gets cancelled. But make absolutely sure that you do not default. Charge between 10% and 30% of the credit limit each month, not more. Pay the balance shown on your credit card statement in full every month and by the due date shown on your monthly statement. It will take a while, but you would typically start noticing the improvement within ~6-12 months. Stop applying for stuff. Not store cards, not car loans, you're not going to get anything, and will just keep dragging your scores down. Each time you have a pull on your report, the score goes down. A lot of pulls, frequent pulls - the score goes down a lot. Lenders can see when one is desperate, and no-one wants to lend money to desperate people. Optimally lenders want to lend money to people who doesn't need loans, but in order to keep the business running they'll settle for slightly less - people who don't usually need loans, and pay the loans they do have on time. You fail on both, as you're desperate for a loan and you have unpaid bills on your report.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6d324ab6806767d063c89d020086ca4",
"text": "What's the fastest way I can raise my credit score from nothing? I worked at a bank for almost 6 years and used their secured credit card. To give you an example of what that did as far as credit was concerned: on Transunion my score increased 200+ points, while on Experian and Equifax, it increased by less than 150. Most customers who used the card also saw an increase, provided that they paid on time and didn't max out the card. Some strategies I used and I recommended to my customers:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "22950e777b1e19bc74ba9f13cd706984",
"text": "\"There are services that deal specifically with these situations, boostcredit101.com is one I've personally had a good experience with though there are plenty out there. What they do is add you as an authorized user to a credit card with a high limit, low balance, and perfect payment history. This \"\"boosts\"\" for about 30 days while you remain listed as a user on that account, which allows you to qualify for your own card or other kind of loan in that time and helps you start rebuilding your credit. I've even heard of people doing this to qualify for a home loan, though the home loan industry is typically aware of this \"\"trick\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "607d3d93fe01a67524bee2141178e60a",
"text": "The short answer is, with limited credit, your best bet might be an FHA loan for first time buyers. They only require 3.5% down (if I recall the number right), and you can qualify for their loan programs with a credit score as low as 580. The problem is that even if you were to add new credit lines (such as signing up for new credit cards, etc.), they still take time to have a positive effect on your credit. First, your score takes a bit of a hit with each new hard inquiry by a prospective creditor, then your score will dip slightly when a new credit account is first added. While your credit score will improve somewhat within a few months of adding new credit and you begin to show payment history on those accounts, your average age of accounts needs to be two years or older for the best effect, assuming you're making all of the payments on time. A good happy medium is to have between 7 and 10 credit lines on your credit history, and to make sure it's a mix of account types, such as store cards, installment loans, and credit cards, to show that you can handle various types of credit. Be careful not to add TOO much credit, because it affects your debt-to-income ratio, and that will have a negative effect on your ability to obtain mortgage financing. I really suggest that you look at some of the sites which offer free credit scores, because some of them provide great advice and tips on how to achieve what you're trying to do. They also offer credit score simulators, which can help you understand how your score might change if, for instance, you add new credit cards, pay off existing cards, or take on installment loans. It's well worth checking out. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "322a5c40e4c81d952476c0acfbd4c64e",
"text": "\"One of the factors of a credit score is the \"\"length of time revolving accounts have been established\"\". Having a credit card with any line of credit will help in this regard. The account will age regardless of your use or utilization. If you are having issues with credit limits and no credit history, you may have trouble getting financing for the purchase. You should be sure you're approved for financing, and not just that the financing option is \"\"available\"\" (potentially with the caveat of \"\"for well qualified borrowers\"\"). Generally, if you've gotten approved for financing, that will come in the form of another credit card account (many contracting and plumbing companies will do this in hopes you will use the card for future purchases) or a bank loan account (more common for auto and home loans). With the credit card account, you might be able to perform a balance transfer, but there are usually fees associated with that. For bank loan accounts, you probably can't pay that off with a credit card. You'll need to transfer money to the account via ACH or send in a check. In short: I wouldn't bet on paying with your current credit card to get any benefit. IANAL. Utilizing promotional offers, whether interest-free for __ months, no balance transfer fees, or whatever, and passing your debt around is not illegal, not fraudulent, and in many cases advised (this is a link), though that is more for people to distribute utilization across multiple cards, and to minimize interest accrued. Many people, myself included, use a credit card for purchasing EVERYTHING, then pay it off in full every month (or sometimes immediately) to reap the benefit of cash back rewards and other cardholder benefits. I've also made a major payment (tuition, actually) on a Discover card, and opened up a new Visa card with 18-months of no interest and no balance transfer fees to let the bill sit for 12 months while I finished school and got a job.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2539bf77b34ceeb3c9a919dc1a7a2889",
"text": "\"Under the assumption you're not looking for a particular credit union/bank (since that'll make this question off topic), you can apply for a secure credit card. That's where you essentially put up a sum of money as collateral. That would be the safe way for someone with \"\"little or no credit history\"\" and wants to build credit. Any big bank (Wells Fargo, Chase, etc.) should be able to do that for you. You can also do that online provided you have the means to transfer money into the account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "426732136eca3b2ab7cf31da061c990a",
"text": "I'm the contrarian in the crowd. I think credit scores and debt are the closest thing to evil incarnate. You're in good company. The absence of a credit score simply means the agencies have insufficient data in their behavioral model to determine how profitable your business would be to the bank. The higher your score, the more likely the bank is to make a profit from your loan. IMHO, you're better off building up cash and investment reserves than a credit history. With sufficient reserves, you will be able to shop around for a bank that will give you a good rate, if you ever do need a loan. You'll be surprised at how quickly you get in a position where you don't need a loan if you save and invest wisely. I used to have a (high) credit score, and I was miserable about it because there were always bills due. I gave up debt 14 years ago, paid the last debt 7 years ago, and have never. been happier. Raising kids without debt (or credit score) is much more fun than with debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60f197fcd24ac4a0004f929ef51fa4a2",
"text": "This strategy will have long lasting effects since negative items can persist for many years, making financing a home difficult, the primary source of household credit. It is also very risky. You can play hard, but then the creditor may choose you to be the one that they make an example out of by suing you for a judgement that allows them to empty your accounts and garnish your wages. If you have no record of late payments, or they are old and/or few, your credit score will quickly shoot up if you pay down to 10% of the balance, keep the cards, and maintain that balance rate. This strategy will have them begging you to take on more credit with offers of lower interest rates. The less credit you take on, the more they'll throw at you, and when it comes time to purchase a home, more home can be bought because your interest rates will be lower.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2066d688f94920e45e8dae06fa2e778f",
"text": "\"Build your credit history by paying the credit accounts you have on time. Review these periodically and close the ones you do not need. Ignore your score until it is time to make a large purchase. Make decisions regarding credit on the basis of whether the debit would be better paid with cash or credit. Not on credit score. Keep in mind that if your income is invested in your future, your money is working for you. The income that is paying debt is working for the lenders. Mint is a financial services industry company (Intuit). You are their product. Intuit makes money from Mint by placing ads on the site where you visit frequently, and by gathering data about those who subscribe to their service. They also are paid to refer you to credit card companies to \"\"build credit.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cc6c9116769ff348070c66a1ed49129",
"text": "\"A credit card is a way to borrow money. That's all. Sometimes the loans are very small - $5 - and sometimes they are larger. You can have a credit card with a company (bank or whatever) that you have no other relationship with. They're not a property of a bank account, they are their own thing. The card you describe sounds exactly like a debit card here, and you can treat your Canadian debit card like your French credit card - you pay for things directly from your bank account, assuming the money is in there. In Canada, many small stores take debit but not credit, so do be sure to get a debit card and not only a credit card. Now as to your specific concerns. You aren't going to \"\"forget to make a wire.\"\" You're going to get a bill - perhaps a paper one, perhaps an email - and it will say \"\"here is everything you charged on your credit card this month\"\" along with a date, which will be perhaps 21 days from the statement date, not the date you used the card. Pay the entire balance (not just the minimum payment) by that date and you'll pay no interest. The bill date will be a specific date each month (eg the 23rd) so you can set yourself a reminder to check and pay your bill once a month. Building a credit history has value if you want to borrow a larger amount of money to buy a car or a house, or to start a business. Unlike the US, it doesn't really have an impact on things like getting a job. If you use your card for groceries, you use it enough, no worries. In 5 years it is nice to look back and see \"\"never paid late; mostly paid the entire amount each month; never went over limit; never went into collections\"\" and so on. In my experience you can tell they like you because they keep raising your limit without you asking them to. If you want to buy a $2500 item and your credit limit is $1500 you could prepay $1000 onto the credit card and then use it. Or you could tell the vendor you'd rather use your debit card. Or you could pay $1500 on the credit card and then rest with your debit card. Lots of options. In my experience once you get up to that kind of money they'd rather not use a credit card because of the merchant fees they pay.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a076691090c6252f90551775a973c8fa",
"text": "Generally, if you have a loan, you have a credit score. But since you have never had a loan before, then it is likely that you do not have a credit score. You should not be worried if you aren't planning on applying for credit and/or loans. If you are wanting to purchase a house, car, or even just having a credit card, you should work on obtaining a secure loan so then you can establish history. Most of the time you have to pay to view your credit score. By law, you can obtain a free copy of your credit report, which it sounds like you have at annualcreditreport.com, which only shows your payment history, but in order to view your credit score, you generally have to pay for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87d965cd8c97f1faa8784ca29206e209",
"text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "269fa9298e086fbc62da9e7a66c195c5",
"text": "What the other's said is right. You build credit by paying over time. Keeping your balance under the halfway mark of your limit and paying it down over the course of a fair amount of periods yields the best results. So if you have a limit of $1500 then charge a $600 credit and pay $100+ interest over 6 months. Best yet are loans with fix installments. This behavior tells the credit agencies you are responsible and you pay your debts. In their eyes you are a low risk high ROI, statistically speaking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2bca858601b7bc24a317dbaf20d6a38",
"text": "\"You have a lack of credit history. Lending is still tight since the recession and companies aren't as willing to take a gamble on people with no history. The secured credit card is the most direct route to building credit right now. I don't think you're going to be applicable for a department store card (pointless anyways and encourages wasteful spending) nor the gas card. Gas cards are credit cards, funded through a bank just like any ordinary credit card, only you are limited to gas purchases at a particular retailer. Although gas cards, department store cards and other limited usage types of credit cards have less requirements, in this post-financial crisis economy, credit is still stringent and a \"\"no history\"\" file is too risky for banks to take on. Having multiple hard inquiries won't help either. You do have a full-time job that pays well so the $500 deposit shouldn't be a problem for the secured credit card. After 6 months you'll get it back anyways. Just remember to pay off in full every month. After 6 months you'll be upgraded to a regular credit card and you will have established credit history.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01264d3bf1b37ab9fb671b8d57b01293",
"text": "I've read multiple times that the way to rebuild the credit score is to get a credit card and then have some minor charges on it every month and have them paid in full every month. Old negative events age and this disciplined activity rebuild the score to some not to horrible levels. Now it's true that it's hard to get reasonably good credit cards when your credit score is poor. Yet it's not necessary to have a good credit card for this case - such things as large credit limit are not needed. All that's needed is a long grace period so that there's no interest between the moment a charge is done and a moment the bill is paid in full at the end of the month. Yes, the card may have rather high interest and rather low credit limit, but it doesn't really matter. I've read once on MSN Money that people are offered credit even while they're in the middle of bankruptcy, so it's not impossible to get a credit card in the described situation. Goes without saying that a lot of discipline will be needed to have all this implemented.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d0741eee12de03a7beb55b8a9fe3b40",
"text": "Set up a meeting with the bank that handles your business checking account. Go there in person and bring your business statements: profit and loss, balance sheet, and a spreadsheet showing your historical cash flow. The goal is to get your banker to understand your business and your needs and also for you to be on a first-name basis with your banker for an ongoing business relationship. Tell them you want to establish credit and you want a credit card account with $x as the limit. Your banker might be able to help push your application through even with your credit history. Even if you can't get the limit you want, you'll be on your way and can meet again with your banker in 6 or 12 months. Once your credit is re-established you'll be able to shop around and apply for other rewards cards. One day you might want a line of credit or a business loan. Establishing a relationship with your banker ahead of time will make that process easier if and when the time comes. Continue to meet with him or her at least annually, and bring updated financial statements each time. If nothing else, this process will help you analyze your business, so the process itself is useful even if nothing comes of it immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6de2264a0a9d82015be6c5d897c27ebd",
"text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
603ee4148f3fbbe0f237b4964feae53c
|
Rental Application Fees
|
[
{
"docid": "7377d2268dcb7cd6f476d5923bce0e6a",
"text": "Slightly abbreviated version of the guidance from NOLO.com California state law limits credit check or application screening fees landlords can charge prospective tenants and specifies what landlords must do when accepting these types of fees. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.6.) Here are key provisions: I am not a lawyer, but it would seem you have two options if you catch a landlord violating these rules. An idea to avoid the whole problem in the first place: Get a copy of your credit report yourself and take a copy with you to meet the landlord. If they want an application fee, ask why they need it making it clear you know the above law. If they say for a credit report offer to give them a copy in lieu of the fee.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "716556dc8e2ec8e89a0b9229f91bd0c6",
"text": "You're asking all the right questions, and if I worked for my landlord's company I might have an answer! I imagine they're capitalizing on people's laziness. I live in the Bay Area where some people probably don't mind paying $35 to not have to walk 100 feet to the office and drop off a check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06724d4ce9c252533e99ccea2c29973c",
"text": "If I is the initial deposit, P the periodic deposit, r the rent per period, n the number of periods, and F the final value, than we can combine two formulas into one to get the following answer: F = I*(1+r)n + P*[(1+r)n-1]/r In this case, you get V = 1000*(1.05)20 + 100*[(1.05)20-1]/0.05 = 5959.89 USD. Note that the actual final value may be lower because of rounding errors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f134d8a57ca26dd730ec653e19eee1f",
"text": "Disappointing this is just an advertisement. I was hoping for a discussion on paying rent online. The online portal the property manager I rent from uses is horrible. They charge at 5% fee for processing payments online (which increases my rent by $45/mo).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "554772f1fd22785cb52c3fab4b5a1063",
"text": "In Massachusetts, we have a similar law. Each tenant fills out a W9 and the account is in their name. You need to find a bank willing to do this at no cost, else fees can be problematic. With today's rates, any fee at all will exceed interest earned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d9403bb9d1a39b292f8692b5bc67126",
"text": "\"Have you been rejected from a rental for a specific reason (leading to this question)? Landlords are in the business of exchanging space for regular payments with no drama. Anything they ask in an application should be something to minimize the risk of drama. The \"\"happy path\"\" optimistic goal is that you pay your rent by the due date every month. If your income is not sufficient for this, demonstrating you have assets and would be able to pay for the full term of the lease is part of the decision to enter into the lease with you. In the non-happy-path, say you fall off the face of the earth before ending the lease. The landlord could be owed several months of rent, and could pursue a legal judgment on your assets. With a court order, they can make the bank pay out what is owed; having bank information reduces the landlord's cost and research efforts in the event the story has degenerated to this point (in the jargon of landlording, this means the tenant is \"\"collectable\"\"). While of course you could have zeroed out your accounts or moved money to a bank you didn't tell the landlord in the meantime, if you are not the bad actor in this story, you probably wouldn't have. If you get any kind of \"\"spidey-sense\"\" about a landlord or property at all there is probably a better rental situation in your city. You also want to minimize drama. If the landlord is operating like a business, they're not in this to perform identity theft. If the landlord is sloppy, or has sloppy office workers, that would be different. In the event sharing your asset information truly bothers you, and the money is for rental expense anyway, you could offer to negotiate a 1 year prepaid rental (of course knock another 5%-10% off for time value of money and lower risk to landlord) if you're sure you wouldn't want to leave early.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1d533045082cea963c107c1c6b250c9",
"text": "The fees for the services are displayed on the PayPal website at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-fees-outside Is there anything else you were looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a811ba05b575681ba2d20adffe6a2fc",
"text": "This is something you are going to have to work out with the leasing company because your goal is to get them to make an exception to their normal rules. I'm a little surprised they wouldn't take 6 months pre-payment, plus documentation of your savings. One option might be to cash in the bonds (since you said they are mature), deposit them in a savings account, and show them your account balance. That documentation of enough to pay for the year, plus an offer to pay 6 months in advance would be pretty compelling. Ask the property manage if that's sufficient. And if the lease is for one year and you're willing to pay the entire year in advance, I can't see how they would possibly object. If your employment prospects are good (show them your resume and explain why you are moving and what jobs you are seeking) a smart property manager would realize you'll be an excellent, low-risk tenant and will make an effort to convince the parent company that you should live there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ff18fce91f9e00ae614b18af671a83a",
"text": "More possible considerations: Comparability with other properties. Maybe properties that rent for $972 have more amenities than this one (parking, laundry, yard, etc) or are in better repair. Or maybe the $972 property is a block closer to campus and thus commands 30% higher rent (that can happen). Condition of property. You know nothing about this until you see it. It could be in such bad shape that you can't legally rent it until you spend a lot of money fixing it. Or it may just be run down or outdated: still inhabitable but not as attractive to renters, leading to lower rent and/or longer vacancy periods. Do you accept that, or spend a lot of money to renovate? Collecting the rent. Tenants don't necessarily always pay their rent on time, or at all. If a tenant quits paying, you incur significant expenses to evict them and then find a new tenant, and all the while, you collect no rent. There could be a tenant in place paying a much lower rent. Rent control or a long lease may prevent you from raising it. If you are able to raise it, and the tenant doesn't want to pay, see above. Maintenance and more maintenance. College students could be hard on the property; one good kegger could easily cause more damage than their security deposits will cover. Being near a university doesn't guarantee you an easy time renting it. It suggests the demand is high, but maybe the supply is even higher. Renting to college students has additional issues. They are less likely to have incomes large enough to satisfy you that they can pay the rent. Are you willing to deal with cosigners? If a student quits paying, are you willing to try to collect from their cosigning parents in another state? And you'll probably have many tenants (roommates) living in the house. They will come and go separately and unexpectedly, complicating your leasing arrangements. And you may well get drawn in to disputes between them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d33cfed182d3f8615b0308ee695e4067",
"text": "As a landlord for 14 years with 10 properties, I can give a few pointers: be able and skilled enough to perform the majority of maintenance because this is your biggest expense otherwise. it will shock you how much maintenance rental units require. don't invest in real estate where the locality/state favors the tenant (e.g., New York City) in disputes. A great state is Florida where you can have someone evicted very quickly. require a minimum credit score of 620 for all tenants over 21. This seems to be the magic number that keeps most of the nightmare tenants out makes sure they have a job nearby that pays at least three times their annual rent every renewal, adjust your tenant's rent to be approximately 5% less than going rates in your area. Use Zillow as a guide. Keeping just below market rates keeps tenants from moving to cheaper options. do not rent to anyone under 30 and single. Trust me trust me trust me. you can't legally do this officially, but do it while offering another acceptable reason for rejection; there's always something you could say that's legitimate (bad credit, or chose another tenant, etc.) charge a 5% late fee starting 10 days after the rent is due. 20 days late, file for eviction to let the tenant know you mean business. Don't sink yourself too much in debt, put enough money down so that you start profitable. I made the mistake of burying myself and I haven't barely been able to breathe for the entire 14 years. It's just now finally coming into profitability. Don't get adjustable rate or balloon loans under any circumstances. Fixed 30 only. You can pay it down in 20 years and get the same benefits as if you got a fixed 20, but you will want the option of paying less some months so get the 30 and treat it like a 20. don't even try to find your own tenants. Use a realtor and take the 10% cost hit. They actually save you money because they can show your place to a lot more prospective tenants and it will be rented much sooner. Empty place = empty wallet. Also, block out the part of the realtor's agreement-to-lease where it states they keep getting the 10% every year thereafter. Most realtors will go along with this just to get the first year, but if they don't, find another realtor. buy all in the same community if you can, then you can use the same vendor list, the same lease agreement, the same realtor, the same documentation, spreadsheets, etc. Much much easier to have everything a clone. They say don't put all your eggs in one basket, but the reality is, running a bunch of properties is a lot of work, and the more similar they are, the more you can duplicate your work for free. That's worth a lot more day-to-day than the remote chance your entire community goes up in flames",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a725f949aaf815c31c2920f1683fe7d",
"text": "Application & processing an application for obtaining a Registration under the Act to Regional PF commissioner. We would be receiving and keeping a track of all the Nomination & Declaration Forms (Form#2) of all new enrollments for onward submission to PF Office. Our Team would be responsible for Submission of Nomination Forms (Form#2). We would be allotting the Individual P.F. A/c. Nos. and maintain their A/c.'s in the devised P.F. Register to be maintained. Monthly Payment Challans to be computed alongwith the desired MIS Reports would be our responsibility and the same would be handed over to your HR Team to make the payment on or before 15th of every month. Preparation and compilation of Monthly and Annual Returns would be our responsibility. All the Payments and Returns would be filed within the stipulated time and the adherence would be monitored by us. We would be submit application for transfer of fund , withdrawal applications and application for non- refundable claims for House repair / purchase of flat/ for post matriculate education , etc. We would be liasoning on behalf of the establishment with the authorities for ensuring smooth functioning, follow ups and retrieving the Annual Accounts Slips. We would also be attending the periodical Inspections on behalf of the establishment. The Responsibility of the Assessment would be limited for the period which would be coverable under our service tenure. We will keep the Company posted on all Amendments & Development of the Act / various circulars issued by SRO time to time for awareness of employees as well as employer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b04cf8e1ff7f2441173d8a4de3017461",
"text": "\"Be very careful with this. When we tried this with furniture, they charged an \"\"administrative\"\" fee to setup the account. I believe it was about $75. So if you defer interest for one year on a $1000 purchase and pay a $75 administrative fee, it's 7.5% interest. Also, they don't always send you a bill when it's due, they just let you go over the date when you could have paid it without paying interest, and then you owe interest from the date of purchase. These plans are slimy. Be careful.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20ae132d01516ae7c708aed732a616e1",
"text": "Surely the yield should be Yield = (Rent - Costs) / Downpayment ? As you want the yield relative to your capital not to the property value. As for the opportunity cost part you could look at the risk free rate of return you could obtain, either through government bonds or bank accounts with some sort of government guarantee (not sure what practical terms are for this in Finland). The management fee is almost 30% of your rent, what does this cover? Is it possible to manage the property yourself, as this would give you a much larger cushion between rent and expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5adc69cca3d027f18083e62afca7523",
"text": "From the apartment owners perspective what was the purpose of $300? They promised they wouldn't rent it to somebody before you had a chance to see it. But lets say you did see it, and decided you didn't like the view. Would they have to give the money back? if so, why would they promise not to rent it if somebody showed up first? I would have made it clear, as the owner, what the money was for. It was a $300 fee to delay rental. You would have essentially bought x number of days of delay. You could view it as a mini-short-term rental. Of course there should have been paperwork involved. There should have been been a receipt that at least mentioned the amount of money involved. You may need to pay the amount owed, and may need to determine if you want to sue in small claims court. Of course your agent may have some liability based on your contract with them and any paperwork they signed when the money was sent to the owner. The fact that the bank sided with you doesn't mean the courts will.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c5aa064b387820dc05c7f309a1ffe17",
"text": "Schedule E is the form you'll use. It lists nearly all deductions you can take for a rental. TurboTax Deluxe will handle it and it includes State Filing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a40bb98efec6409b70151dd126776cff",
"text": "I'm assuming this is the US. Is this illegal? Are we likely to be caught? What could happen if caught? If you sign an occupancy affidavit at closing that says you intend to move in within 60-days, with no intention of doing so, then you'll be committing fraud, specifically mortgage/occupancy fraud, a federal crime with potential for imprisonment and hefty fines. In general, moving in late is not something that's likely to be noticed, if the lender is getting their money then they probably don't care. Renting it out prior to moving in seems much riskier, especially if you live in a city/state that requires rental licensing, or are depending on rental income to carry the mortgage. No idea how frequently people are caught/punished for this type of fraud, but it hardly seems worth finding out.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1bbc45cc7d01942bf539efb114976577
|
My bank often blocks my card during purchases - what is the most reliable bank card? (UK)
|
[
{
"docid": "325915f956881bcf35484789a75e57fc",
"text": "\"This question is likely to be closed as a product recommendation request. But if you are willing to change the question a bit, perhaps to \"\"How do I avoid having my debit card declined when I know I have good funds\"\" it becomes a reasonable general question. And my answer follows. I can tell you the same thing happens to those of us with credit cards. It can happen when your buying pattern changes. Suddenly buying a lot of merchandise, especially away from home. Nothing like having your card declined while with relatives you visit or while on vacation. I'd talk to the bank and ask for advice how to avoid this. I've called my card issuer to tell them I'll in X city for these dates, to expect charges from there. That seems to work well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0c63f8ceefa08c9cd94e5324d84bd46",
"text": "\"Having worked in the financial industry, I can say 9:10 times a card is blocked, it is not actually the financial industry, but a credit/credit card monitoring service like \"\"Falcon\"\" for VISA. If you have not added travel notes or similar, they will decline large, our of country purchases as a way to protect you, from what is most likely fraud. Imagine if you were living in Sweden and making regular steady purchases, then all of a sudden, without warning your card was used in Spain. This would look suspicious on paper, even it was obvious to you. This is less to do with your financial institution, and more to do with increased fraud prevention. Call your bank. They will help you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6810de46ac8d987ed495b03c9fc5dce",
"text": "I have had my card blocked at home only rarely. One occasion comes to mind - I had bought something fairly large online late at night. No sooner had I clicked Purchase than my phone rang - the bank was asking had I actually just spent [$amount] at [$online store]? I said yes and that was that. A little later I made another purchase late at night on a different card. It went through, but when I tried to use the card the next day for something small in a store, it was declined. Embarrassed, I used a different card then called the bank. They said they had put the card on hold because of the online purchase for a large amount, even though they had let the purchase go through. They hadn't called me because it was late at night, and they hadn't given themselves any reasonable mechanisms to compensate for that (like calling me the next morning, emailing me, or the like) they'd just blocked the card. We had what you might call a frank and open exchange of views on the matter. Not all banks use the same strategies or software. I suggest: Far and away the simplest thing is just to have more than one card so that these declines are a momentary hiccup you might forget by the time you and your Rolex are out of the store.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7be1da953541e9ce40e4598da9a824e4",
"text": "\"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, \"\"lag time\"\", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "306bb354eb7a9ffb5fae3393a9007d2d",
"text": "\"Others have already commented on the impact of anything which dissuades merchants from raising possible breaches, so I won't dwell on that. Maybe we need stronger legislation, maybe we don't, but it doesn't change today's answer. Often it works the other way around to what you might expect - rather than the merchant noticing and notifying Visa/MC/others, Visa/MC/others spot patterns of suspicious activity (example 1). I don't have any data on the relative numbers of who is being notified/notifying between merchants and payment processors, but at the point when your card is identified as compromised there's no reason to suppose that an individual merchant in the traditional sense has been compromised, let alone identified. In fact because there's a fast moving investigation it could even be a false alarm that led to your card getting cancelled. Conversely it could be a hugely complex multinational investigation which would be jeopardised. It's simply not safe to assume that simply \"\"brand X\"\" has been compromised, therefore everything \"\"brand X\"\" knows about you is also compromised: Furthermore there's no reason to assume the merchant has even admitted to, or discovered the root cause. MC/Visa/Banks, at the point at which they're cancelling cards simply can't say (at least not in a way that might expensively backfire involving lots of lawyers) because the standard of proof needed to go on record blaming someone is simply not yet met. So: yes it's common that you aren't told anything for all of the above reasons. And of course if you really want to find out more you may have some success with your local data protection legislation and formally make a subject access request (or local equivalent) to see what that brings back. Be sure to do it in writing, to the official address of both mastercard and your bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdde16f02a47c59d0ba7b213478cdd88",
"text": "Oh yes, it is absolutely the problem of the consumers. After all how is the bank to know how it should be doing business unless the customer explains it to them? Please read the other comments about how the customer has verified receipt of some critical document and then they claim that they don't have it. Sure they are very nice on the phone, but that doesn't help when I have to take time out of my work day to call them repeatedly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1492c7d7a160f55fad97eb6c89942dcc",
"text": "I use another solution: debit card with an account kept empty most of the time and another account in the same bank without any card. I keep the money on the second card-less account, and when I want to buy something, I instantly transfer the appropriate amount to the account with the card and pay. That way money is on the account tied to a debit card only for a minute before payment, and normally it is empty - so even if someone would try to fraudulently use my card number - I don't care - the transaction will be rejected. I think its the perfect solution - no fraud possible, and I don't have to worry about possibly having to bother calling my bank and requesting a chargeback, which is stressful and a waste of time and harmful to peace of mind (what if they refuse the chargeback)? I prefer to spend a minute before each transaction to transfer the money between the two accounts, and that time is not a waste, because I use it to reconsider the purchase - which prevents impulse-buying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39a433a84ddadd612b78e80c78d4808f",
"text": "\"The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an \"\"expected profit rate\"\" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with \"\"typical\"\" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0b0f2a8a8ad5213aec82f7c592e9d45",
"text": "Debit cards with the Visa or Mastercard symbol on them work technically everywhere where credit cards work. There are some limitations where the respective business does not accept them, for example car rentals want a credit card for potential extra charges; but most of the time, for day-to-day shopping and dining, debit cards work fine. However, you should read up the potential risks. A credit card gives you some security by buffering incorrect/fraudulent charges from your account, and credit card companies also help you reverse incorrect charges, before you ever have to pay for it. If you use a debit card, it is your money on the line immediately - any incorrect charge, even accidential, takes your money from your account, and it is gone while you work on reversing the charge. Any theft, and your account can be cleaned out, and you will be without money while you go after the thief. Many people consider the debit card risk too high, and don't use them for this reason. However, many people do use them - it is up to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60a2572977757c55d3e10e77ab881e79",
"text": "You could get a prepaid Visa card. You don't need a bank account and at least here in Australia you just buy them over the counter at the post office. I believe the U.K. has a similar card: Travel Money Card Plus from the Post Office. The card requires a UK passport or driving license. Other European countries may have similar prepaid cards but may also require resident status and electronic identity / credit inquiry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "752daecc1ea9eac372dfd2a26e756c88",
"text": "I would try to avoid mixing business expenditure with personal expenditure so a second credit card might be a good idea. That said, I did get a business credit card for my company in the UK as I didn't want to be personally liable for the money that was spent on the business card (even though I owned 100% of the business) in case things went horribly wrong. As I didn't fancy signing a personal guarantee, this meant that the limit was quite low but it was good enough in most cases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70cbde4e59f8d13443d6583130e5122e",
"text": "\"Speaking from personal experience: I have had a credit card canceled for exactly this reason. It's happened to me three times, with two different providers (NatWest and Nationwide). After the third instance I stopped bothering to even carry a credit card. It's worth noting that all three were \"\"free\"\" cards in the sense that I paid no flat fee or subscription to get the cards. The only way the issuer could make a profit on them was through interest. I was also not a frequent user, carrying the card for convenience more than anything else, although I did make purchases on all three. So it's certainly a possibility. But I live in the UK and I'm guessing most of your other respondents do not. It may be a practice that's more common here than in the US. That might even explain the origin of the rumour.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f259be50d138b904b12baade94cba456",
"text": "When debit cards were first made available one of the advertised strengths was that if you never wrote a check,and always used a debit card, you could never be overdrawn. They money would be instantly withdrawn from the account and the balance would always reflect perfectly the amount of money in the account. Of course some saw the loss of float as a weakness, but for others this instantaneous aspect was what they needed. If only that were true. I have seen debit card transactions take a couple of days to appear. I have seen a $1 hold for gas not be removed and the real amount withdrawn for 2 or 3 days. Horror stories about having a $3 coffee end up costing $30 because of overdraft fees can only occur if the transactions aren't instant. The contactless feature doesn't make the time delay any shorter. The delay for an individual transaction, assuming there are no unusual network problems, still depend on the vendor policies, the card network policies, and the bank policies. But from the viewpoint of the cashier the transaction has been completes and the customer can leave with their coffee. From the viewpoint of the bank account it may still be waiting,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f4811e9f57f13e77060fd89a6104181",
"text": "This link might help determining if American Express is willing to offer a card in the UK. I did it the other way around when moving from the UK to the US and getting a US card was pretty painless; I also didn't have to close the UK card, although I'm probably going to do that fairly soon. You will need a UK bank account so your employer can pay you; If it is a big enough employer their HR department might have deals with a local bank; a smaller employer might simply be able to refer you to their bank to help you open an account there. My first bank account in the UK after moving over there from Germany was with HSBC (then Midland Bank) - HSBC seems to be pretty open towards customers moving to the UK. Plus, they're pretty much everywhere. If you're planning to come back to the US and especially if you have any US-based ongoing expenses, I'd keep at least one bank account in the US open (but keep an eye on it).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3676ef92f760af7d37a1107c411add97",
"text": "\"I think this stuff was more valid when grace periods were longer. For example, back in the 90's, I had an MBNA card with a 35 day grace period. Many business travellers used Diner's Club charge cards because they featured a 60 day grace period. There are valid uses for this: As JoeTaxpayer stated, if you are benefiting from \"\"tricks\"\" like this, you probably have other problems that you probably ought to deal with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ec98223bf7d147a121185b9f03fae31",
"text": "\"There's something wrong with your story. The IBAN contiains two check digits, and the method used to compute them guarantees that any single digit error will be caught. So it's impossible that \"\"HSBC screwed up the last digit of my IBAN\"\" because if that were the case, the resulting IBAN would not be valid and be rejected by the computer when it was entered at your bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5f3a1695022c098d71e4d8b6cc024a0",
"text": "Why not get her a credit card of her own, while she is still in the US? My experience with Canadian banks is that they were delighted to issue credit cards to I-turned-18-yesterday with no income. We did not cosign these applications. You can then give her a budget and pay up to that amount of her credit card bill each month (you should be able to do this online.) Should she overspend, she may have to scrimp for a while until your payments bring the balance back to zero. Don't delay on this though: I doubt any UK bank will issue her a card with no credit history and having only just moved to the country. And get a chip and pin if you can, they work everywhere in Europe.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fcfeebb0faba76688ae01f2b16b6b4c7
|
What does “balance sheet banks” mean in this context?
|
[
{
"docid": "d9363e182020d78bdc5050c5969a94da",
"text": "\"The balance sheet for a bank is the list of assets and liabilities that the bank directly is responsible for. This would be things like loans the bank issues and accounts with the bank. Banks can make both \"\"balance sheet\"\" loans, meaning a loan that says on the balance sheet - one the bank gains the profits from but holds the risks for also. They can also make \"\"off balance sheet\"\" loans, meaning they securitize the loan (sell it off, such as the mortgage backed securities). Most major banks, i.e. Chase, Citibank, etc., could be called \"\"balance sheet\"\" banks because at least some portion of their lending comes from their balance sheet. Not 100% by any means, they participate in the security swaps extensively just like everyone does, but they do at least some normal, boring lending just as you would explain a bank to a five year old. Bank takes in deposits from account holders, loans that money out to people who want to buy homes or start businesses. However, some (particularly smaller) firms don't work this way - they don't take responsibility for the money or the loans. They instead \"\"manage assets\"\" or some similar term. I think of it like the difference between Wal-Mart and a consignment store. Wal-Mart buys things from its distributors, and sells them, taking the risk (of the item not selling) and the reward (of the profit from selling) to itself. On the other hand, a consignment store takes on neither: it takes a flat fee to host your items in its store, but takes no risk (you own the items) nor the majority of the profit. In this case, Mischler Financial Group is not a bank per se - they don't have accounts; they manage funds, instead. Note the following statement on their Services page for example: Mischler Financial Group holds no risk positions and no unwanted inventory of securities, which preserves the integrity of our capital and assures our clients that we will be able to obtain bids and offers for them regardless of adverse market conditions. They're not taking your money and then making their own investments; they're advising you how to invest your money, or they're helping do it for you, but it's your money going out and your risk (and reward).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "58860fe0de482e4d2eb3464f2934d2b9",
"text": "\"Clearing means processing unsettled transactions. Specifically - all the money transfers between the banks, in this case. Clearing Bank for RMB business means that all RMB transactions will be cleared through that specific bank. If bank A in Hong Kong gets a check drawn on Bank B in Hong Kong, and the check is in RMB - A will go to the BoC with the check and will get the money, and BoC will take the money from B. That obviously requires both A and B have accounts with BoC. \"\"Sole\"\" clearing house means there's only one. I.e.: in our example, A and B cannot settle the check through C where they both happen to have accounts, or directly with each other. They MUST utilize the services of BoC.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67ecaeb0dc5c48e630846ae225a8727d",
"text": "When banks create a loan, it is said they write the debit account out of thin air (liability), balanced by the loan (asset). When the person who gets the loans spends the money, the bank has to pay it. If the bank only has 10% reserves of the money it loans, how does the bank pay out it's loans? Does it borrow the money from the Fed and then pay it back?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15e7356c016443e5288e2ef1b1cbb8ed",
"text": "The same banks that own those loan debts are also heavily invested in the corporations who provide workforce data for educational and job placement to the schools the debtors attend... And the same Corporations who offer jobs to graduates- they can be sure they'll be getting pliable debt slaves right out the gate. They'll be good little taxpayers, funding the wars for profit contracts and corporate subsidies which are all good for the banks. People think they are getting education, but they are actually (by-and-large) getting shackles.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5ba4d0f16ca882bbed7a6ab56fdf362",
"text": "\">Besides, if banks are so evil, why would I ever do any business with them? Are you not familiar with the phrase \"\"a necessary evil\"\"? You must understand that the major difference between borrowing from an individual and borrowing from a financial institution is that the latter factors the risk of default into its business model. The bank expects a certain percentage of its borrowers to default and manages its risk accordingly, which is why there are such things as credit scores and variable APRs in the first place. Your bank doesn't \"\"trust\"\" you any further than it could throw you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5132b40266f047e3d4b8b00719e93e6c",
"text": "I wouldn't say 90% but it is a lot. Oracle Financials is also quite big. Excel is used for reporting. To give you an idea of how one big organisation does it, the balance sheet is SAP. Transactions are done with Oracle, the two are reconciled and reported via Excel.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce55bb468243f17ed0bb47ed03907a2",
"text": "You must mean the current debt ceiling debacle. The meaning of it is: US government is constantly borrowing money (by issuing treasury bonds) and constantly repaying some of the bonds that come to maturity, and also has other obligations it has to meet by law all the time - such as Social Security checks, bonds interest, federal employees' salaries and pensions, etc. By law, total amount of money that can be borrowed at the same time is capped. That means, there can be situation where the government needs to borrow money to pay, say, interest on existing bonds, but can not, since the limit is reached. Such situation is called a default, since the government promised to pay the interest, but is unable to do so. That does not mean the government has no money at all and will completely collapse or couldn't raise money on the market if it were permitted by law to do so (currently, the market is completely willing to buy the debt issued by US government, and with interest that is not very high, though of course that may change). It also does not mean the economy ceases to function, dollars cease to have value or banks instantly go bankrupt. But if the government breaks its promises to investors, it has various consequences such as raising the costs of borrowing in the future. Breaking promises to other people - like Social Security recipients - would also look bad and probably hurt many of them. Going back to your bank account, most probably nothing would happen to the money you store there. Even if the bank had invested 100% of the money in US treasury bonds (which doesn't really happen) they still can be sold on the open market, even if with some discount in the event of credit rating downgrade, so most probably your account would not be affected. As stated in another answer, even if the fallout of all these calamities causes a bank to fail, there's FDIC and if your money is under insured maximums you'll be getting your money back. But if your bank is one of the big ones, nothing of the sort would happen anyway - as we have seen in the past years, government would do practically anything to not allow any big bank failures.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b4ac6d21b3e809e741841ba81cd1cf1",
"text": "This article is 100% incorrect. The governments main concern is to PREVENT depositors and tax payers from losing funds in the case of bank default. How? By having debt holders being forced to converted into equity to create a capital buffer to keep a bank solvent which will help protect depositors and prevent tax payers from having to bail the banks out. Please ask me more questions on this as I have done a lot of work on this topic as of late.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5202d4de136b1e8c4e29e3b6a1b04d89",
"text": "Can someone who understands this part of the business explain what exactly happened and how they benefited? I have read a few articles, and I don't really understand. I work in a bank, and seeing how some other aspects of the financial crisis were portrayed in the news, I have a feeling the whole story isn't being told. How could this have possibly gone on undetected?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88270328b70d71e169a6f12bd3f0c450",
"text": "\"When trying to understand accounting, it's always helpful to reference the balance sheet identity, thus , and debits and credits must balance. In this case, one would So that \"\"Cash\"\" is subtracted (credited) from assets, and \"\"Loans to family members\"\" is added (debited) to assets. The income identity is treated differently as So, unless if the \"\"Cash\"\" and \"\"Loans to family members\"\" did not start imbalanced, there was no revenue or expense. A revenue will be any interest paid. The expenses will be any costs related to loaning the money such as drafting a contract or any amount defaulted. Assets are not liabilities A liability on the balance sheet is a liability owed by the entity measured, such as a person or a company. The family members in this case are the borrowers, so they are the ones who must increase their liability accounts like so: The lender to family members would not increase liabilities in this case because the lender is not borrowing from the borrower. Debits, credits, and the balance sheet Debits & credits must be equal, or an identity is violated. Debits add to assets and subtract from liabilities (and equity) while credits subtract from assets and add to liabilities (and equity). If a lender were to try to simultaneously subtract cash from assets and add loans to liabilities to book a loan, the operation would look like this This would cause an immediate imbalance because there are no offsetting debits, but more importantly, crediting Loans to family members as a liability would actually mean that the lender owes Loans to family members.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6bd677c1e3ea129e086763705a7bdad",
"text": "\"The \"\"c.\"\" is probably circa, or \"\"about.\"\" Regulatory settlements is in blue because it's negative; the amount is in parentheses, which indicates a loss. WB and CB might be wholesale banking and commercial banking? BAU probably means \"\"business as usual\"\" or things that don't directly apply to the project. Incremental investment is the additional cash a company puts towards its long-term capital assets. FX is probably foreign exchange.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22b2aebd3992603ea02a85a66c152fc0",
"text": "\"And the absolutely brilliant punchline: who do these regulators and leaders\"\" think will be the purchasers of said debt? Why other systemically important, TBTF banks of course! Which means that, in the by now quite familiar \"\"daisy-chaining\"\" of counterparties and collateral, once one bank fails, its exposure via collateral, repo and certainly, funding of other bank balance sheets, everything will promptly freeze as risk reprices, a la Lehman bonds.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f84479e8a52861dfe9eeead50cc3aa64",
"text": "Yes, I think you're correct. I think it was more like. Paul Singer: Pay up on time and in full or I will ruin your credit history so bad you'll never be able to get a loan again. Argentina: Burn the house, we will call the BRIC bank to re-build.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "dbf6c0d7a43b6351ab3b9a3854accdca",
"text": "Fractional reserve banking is all fine and dandy, however allowing banks to use savings accounts and checking accounts for high-risk investments is the real insanity. Fiat currency is what you're getting at being 'broken' as it is inherently a political tool.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0a0d9d141ef7e145d5b00a7be8a9c9d",
"text": ">banking practises thrive through deception. and >A bank is in other words, just moving money from A to B and then making profit out of thin air due to the capitalistic systems nature and >they are private govt agencies I realize these are just snippets, but from other debate threads it seems there is a lot of misinformation about what banks are. I have only taken a few finance classes so I was coming here to see what /r/finance thinks a bank is. Sorry if I let me own bias show in my post, I wasnt trying to let it. But I still havent seen anyone mention the benefits of credit. It seems most peoples perception of a bank is very simplistic.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7d85d9c64fc7defa0ec5856405015e68
|
For a car, what scams can be plotted with 0% financing vs rebate?
|
[
{
"docid": "b605715d4578ff53e0f1b6bc6e390df0",
"text": "The car deal makes money 3 ways. If you pay in one lump payment. If the payment is greater than what they paid for the car, plus their expenses, they make a profit. They loan you the money. You make payments over months or years, if the total amount you pay is greater than what they paid for the car, plus their expenses, plus their finance expenses they make money. Of course the money takes years to come in, or they sell your loan to another business to get the money faster but in a smaller amount. You trade in a car and they sell it at a profit. Of course that new transaction could be a lump sum or a loan on the used car... They or course make money if you bring the car back for maintenance, or you buy lots of expensive dealer options. Some dealers wave two deals in front of you: get a 0% interest loan. These tend to be shorter 12 months vs 36,48,60 or even 72 months. The shorter length makes it harder for many to afford. If you can't swing the 12 large payments they offer you at x% loan for y years that keeps the payments in your budget. pay cash and get a rebate. If you take the rebate you can't get the 0% loan. If you take the 0% loan you can't get the rebate. The price you negotiate minus the rebate is enough to make a profit. The key is not letting them know which offer you are interested in. Don't even mention a trade in until the price of the new car has been finalized. Otherwise they will adjust the price, rebate, interest rate, length of loan, and trade-in value to maximize their profit. The suggestion of running the numbers through a spreadsheet is a good one. If you get a loan for 2% from your bank/credit union for 3 years and the rebate from the dealer, it will cost less in total than the 0% loan from the dealer. The key is to get the loan approved by the bank/credit union before meeting with the dealer. The money from the bank looks like cash to the dealer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85a22b9f88c17e4df080b8498dba4cbc",
"text": "\"Here's a number-crunching example of how the \"\"Zero interest rate\"\" offer is misleading. Suppose the offer is that a car \"\"costs $24,000.00 with zero percent financing over 24 months\"\" or as an alternative, \"\"$3,000.00 off for cash\"\". Ignore the hype: the quoted prices and the quoted interest rates. Look at what really happens to two people who take advantage of the two offers, One person hands over $21,000.00 cash, and leaves with the new car. The second promises to make 24 payments of $1000.00, one a month, starting in one month's time, and also leaves with the same make and model new car. The two people have received exactly the same benefit, so the two payment schemes must have the same value. A mortgage program will tell you that paying off a $21,000.00 loan by making 24 monthly payments of $1000.00 requires an interest rate of 1.10% a month, or an effective annual rate of 14.03%.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1380194c0b6436ed04951838f3289501",
"text": "If you have enough money to buy a car in full, that probably means you have good credit. If you have good credit, car dealerships will often offer 0% loans for either a small period of time, like 12 months, or the entire loan. Taking a 0% loan is obviously more optimal than paying the entire lump sum up front. You can take the money and invest in other things that earn you more than 0%. However, most dealerships offer a rebate OR a 0% loan. Some commenters below claim that the rebate is usually larger than the saved interest, so definitely do the math if you have that option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c584db6ae2f9e3b6d480b9df41e05090",
"text": "\"I cannot stress this enough, so I'll just repeat it: Don't plan your finances around your credit score. Don't even think about your credit score at all. Plan a budget an stick to it. Make sure you include short and long term savings in your budget. Pay your bills on time. Use credit responsibly. Do all of these things, and your credit rating will take care of itself. Don't try to plan your finances around raising it. On the subject of 0% financing specifically, my rule of thumb is to only ever use it when I have enough money saved up to buy the thing outright, and even then only if my budget will still balance with the added cost of repaying the loan. Other people have other rules, including not taking such loans at all, and you should develop a rule that works for you (but you should have a rule). One rule shouldn't have is \"\"do whatever will optimize your credit score\"\" because you shouldn't plan your finances around your credit score. All things considered, I think the most important thing in your situation is to make sure that you don't let the teaser rate tempt you into making purchases you wouldn't otherwise make. You're not really getting free money; you're just shifting around the time frame for payment, and only within a limited window at that. Also, be sure to read the fine print in the credit agreement; they can be filled with gotchas and pitfalls. In particular, if you don't clear the balance by the end of the introductory rate period, you can sometimes incur interest charges retroactively to the date of purchase. Make sure you know your terms and conditions cold. It sounds like you're just getting started, so best of luck, and remember that Rome wasn't built in a day. Patience can be the most effective tool in your personal finance arsenal. p.s. Don't plan your finances around your credit score.\"",
"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": "2afc463c2de196296f20f632d9d0fe12",
"text": "If you're getting 0% on the financing, it's not costing you anything to borrow that money. So its basically free money. If you are comfortable with the monthly payments, consider going with no downpayment at all. Keep that money aside for a rainy day, or invest it somewhere so that you get some return on it. If you need to lower the payments later you can always use that money to pay down part of the loan later (check with the dealer that it is an open loan). If you're not comfortable with the payments at 0 down, put enough down to bring the monthly payment to a level where you are comfortable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12ce6bf1901e7a59419a3c340b6d6bfc",
"text": "I could be mistaken on this, but after the GM bailout and others, weren't laws put in place to essentially force companies to maintain a certain level of liquidity? Also, that 0% is probably closer to .25~.50 through way of credit swaps, no? Or if we assume it's earning .1%, that's still $6,666,667/month ($80,000,000,000 x .001/12).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c03c89b9c8a7b1f7dc27747751e1c316",
"text": "\"This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser” payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a \"\"cost of doing business\"\" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with \"\"caveat emptor\"\" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face). But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2030d051b9a4283cf0200420312b9693",
"text": "The bank depends on the laws of large numbers. They don't need to make money on every customer -- just on average. There are several ways that zero interest makes sense to them: You asked about banks, and I don't think you see this last scheme in use very much by a bank. Here's why. First, customers absolutely hate it - and when you drop the interest bomb, they will warn their friends away, blow you up on social media, call the TV news consumer protectors, and never, ever, ever do business with you again. Which defeats your efforts in customer acquisition. Second, it only works on that narrow range of people who default just a little bit, i.e. who have an auto-pay malfunction. If someone really defaults, not only will they not pay the punishment interest, they won't pay the principal either! This only makes sense for secured loans like furniture or cars, where you can repo that stuff - with unsecured loans, you don't really have any power to force them to pay, short of burning their credit. You can sue them, but you can't get blood from a stone.",
"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": "0579f10d1ce90a4cde198f805773cf5a",
"text": "First of all, congratulations on paying off $40k in debt in one year. Mathematically, you'd be better off making the standard car loan payments and putting your extra money toward the student loan. However, there are a few other things that you might want to consider. Over the last year, you've knocked out a whole bunch of different debts. Feels pretty good, doesn't it? At your current rate, you could knock out your new car loan in 6 months. Then you'd only have one debt left. If it sounds to you like it would be nice to only have one debt left, then it might be worth the mathematical disadvantage you would get by paying off the car early instead of putting the money toward the last student loan. The car loan is 0%, but if you are late on a single payment, they will take that opportunity to raise your interest rate to something probably higher than the interest rate of your student loan. For this reason, you may decide it is not worth the hassle, and you'd rather just eliminate the car loan as quickly as possible. Either choice is fine, in my opinion, as long as you have a purpose behind the choice and you are committed to eliminating both debts as quickly as possible. As an aside, it is important to remember that even a 0% loan is not really free money, and needs to be paid back. You know this, of course, but sometimes you see a 0% loan advertized and it feels like free money. It's not. You have probably already paid for the loan by forfeiting a rebate. So although, at this point having already taken this loan and paying for it, you will come out ahead by dragging out your car loan for the full term, in the future do not think that you can make money by buying something at 0% interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "90784bb2202e09012dc892aadfee1d73",
"text": "\"As reported by ZeroHedge in January 2016: \"\"While the media claims that this record has been reached because of drastic improvements to the US economy, they are once again failing to account for the central factor: credit expansion.\"\" \"\"In order to generate more vehicle purchases, these companies have incentivized consumers with hot, hard-to-resist offers, similar to the infamous “liar loans” and “no-money down” loans of the 2008 recession.\"\" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-11/auto-loan-bubble-ready-pop. Pro tip: Get your news over 1 year in advance by reading ZeroHedge and not shitty Bloomberg or other lamestream media.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "454af89ce64a4b4e0a6d5a9c8c1f8ea5",
"text": "\"I'd put more money down and avoid financing. I personally don't think car debt is good debt and if you can't afford the car, you are better off with a cheaper car. Also, you should read up on the 0% offer before deciding to commit. Here's one article that is slightly dated, but discusses some pros and cons of 0% financing. My main point though is that 0% financing is not \"\"free\"\" and you need to consider the cost of that financing before making the purchase. Aside from the normal loan costs of having a monthly payment, possibly buying too much car by looking at monthly cost, etc., a 0% financing offer usually forces you to give the dealer/financing company any rebates that are due to you, in essence making the car cost more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1f1aa4fd1d65fa135ec33d4155d334c",
"text": "\"You are correct to be wary. Car dealerships make money selling cars, and use many tactics and advertisements to entice you to come into their showroom. \"\"We are in desperate need of [insert your make, model, year and color]! We have several people who want that exact car you have! Come in and sell it to us and buy a new car at a great price! We'll give you so much money on your trade in!\"\" In reality, they play a shell game and have you focus on your monthly payment. By extending the loan to 4 or 5 years (or longer), they can make your monthly payment lower, sure, but the total amount paid is much higher. You're right: it's not in your best interest. Buy a car and drive it into the ground. Being free of car payments is a luxury!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
},
{
"docid": "eeac29631c2021c0a70d03a09c16d73b",
"text": "Most 0% interest loans have quite high interest rates that are deferred. If you are late on a payment you are hit with all the deferred interest. They're banking on a percentage of customers missing a payment. Also, this is popular in furniture/car sales because it's a way to get people to buy who otherwise wouldn't, they made money on the item sale, so the loan doesn't have to earn them money (even though some will). Traditional banks/lenders do make money from interest and rely on that, they would have to rely on fees if interest were not permitted.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
69e4d82fc9fb957162ec5c6b4a6ce305
|
Dividend vs Growth Stocks for young investors
|
[
{
"docid": "8a034f1611cd316cbe7ee2c792c80699",
"text": "\"The key is to look at total return, that is dividend yields plus capital growth. Some stocks have yields of 5%-7%, and no growth. In that case, you get the dividends, and not a whole lot more. These are called dividend stocks. Other stocks pay no dividends. But if they can grow at 15%-20% a year or more, you're fine.These are called growth stocks. The safest way is to get a \"\"balanced\"\" combination of dividends and growth, say a yield of 3% growing at 8%-10% a year, for a total return of 11%-13%. meaning that you get the best of both worlds.These are called dividend growth stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "180e6d94451418039726e6417a0faa49",
"text": "First, what Daniel Carson said. Second, if you're getting started, just make sure you are well diversified. Lots of growth stocks turn into dividend stocks over time-- Microsoft and Apple are the classic examples in this era. Someday, Google will pay a dividend too. If you're investing for the long haul, diversify and watch your taxes, and you'll make out better than nearly everyone else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "283abe2bf7ba643264d43d27a0f39044",
"text": "A lot of people use dividend stocks as a regular income, which is why dividend stocks are often associated with retirement. If your goal is growth and you're reinvesting capital gains and dividends then investing growth stocks or dividend stocks should have the same effect. The only difference would be if you are manually reinvesting dividends, which could incur extra trading fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a441a35f5ea8b2a32692d8b7d32d6a20",
"text": "\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7634073cc528cda9424fbd7a8253d95e",
"text": "You should never invest in a stock just for the dividend. Dividends are not guaranteed. I have seen some companies that are paying close to 10% dividends but are losing money and have to borrow funds just to maintain the dividends. How long can these companies continue paying dividends at this rate or at all. Would you keep investing in a stock paying 10% dividends per year where the share price is falling 20% per year? I know I wouldn't. Some high dividend paying stocks also tend to grow a lot slower than lower or non dividend paying stocks. You should look at the total return - both dividend yield and capital return combined to make a better decision. You should also never stay in a stock which is falling drastically just because it pays a dividend. I would never stay in a stock that falls 20%, 30%, 50% or more just because I am getting a 5% dividend. Regarding taxation, some countries may have special taxation rules when it comes to dividends just like they may have special taxation rules for longer term capital gains compared to shorter term capital gains. Again no one should use taxation as the main purpose to make an investment decision. You should factor taxation into your decision but it should never be the determining factor of your decisions. No one has ever become poor in making a gain and paying some tax, but many people have lost a great portion of their capital by not selling a stock when it has lost 50% or more of its value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12ba592d2f049943973920988ce2b57c",
"text": "The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d65e2d5329fa3d2f3b1c4b2a853847b7",
"text": "\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0a96be69a097f0ddb3916ff126d5baa",
"text": "The reason that you are advised to take more risk while you are young is because the risk is often correlated to a short investment horizon. Young people have 40-50 years to let their savings grow if they get started early enough. If you need the money in 5-15 years (near the end of your earning years), there is much more risk of a dip that will not correct itself before you need the money than if you don't need the money for 25-40 years (someone whose career is on the rise). The main focus for the young should be growth. Hedging your investments with gold might be a good strategy for someone who is worried about the volatility of other investments, but I would imagine that gold will only reduce your returns compared to small-cap stocks, for example. If you are looking for more risk, you can leverage some of your money and buy call options to increase the gains with upward market moves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e05a30c4c2dd0cf27738493f5d1a2b47",
"text": "This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a60299283d4304455f80044b59c59161",
"text": "Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more. If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31ddc4ebffed415c057593a0a676c33a",
"text": "Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks'). Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different. They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks. (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets. Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2",
"text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "df51baa716fa4162186729d8475b8167",
"text": "\"The Dividend Discount Model is based on the concept that the present value of a stock is the sum of all future dividends, discounted back to the present. Since you said: dividends are expected to grow at a constant rate in perpetuity ... the Gordon Growth Model is a simple variant of the DDM, tailored for a firm in \"\"steady state\"\" mode, with dividends growing at a rate that can be sustained forever. Consider McCormick (MKC), who's last dividend was 31 cents, or $1.24 annualized. The dividend has been growing just a little over 7% annually. Let's use a discount, or hurdle rate of 10%. MKC closed today at $50.32, for what it's worth. The model is extremely sensitive to inputs. As g approaches r, the stock price rises to infinity. If g > r, stock goes negative. Be conservative with 'g' -- it must be sustainable forever. The next step up in complexity is the two-stage DDM, where the company is expected to grow at a higher, unsustainable rate in the early years (stage 1), and then settling down to the terminal rate for stage 2. Stage 1 is the present value of dividends during the high growth period. Stage 2 is the Gordon Model, starting at the end of stage 1, and discounting back to the present. Consider Abbott Labs (ABT). The current annual dividend is $1.92, the current dividend growth rate is 12%, and let's say that continues for ten years (n), after which point the growth rate is 5% in perpetuity. Again, the discount rate is 10%. Stage 1 is calculated as follows: Stage 2 is GGM, using not today's dividend, but the 11th year's dividend, since stage 1 covered the first ten years. 'gn' is the terminal growth, 5% in our case. then... The value of the stock today is 21.22 + 51.50 = 72.72 ABT closed today at $56.72, for what it's worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d508d155637deec50c60a2ca1ee444b",
"text": "\"Dividend paying stocks are not \"\"better\"\" In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations. The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares. Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field. IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edda35fcb15185c95e9989ac80f206f2",
"text": "25% isnt high growth for tech. Amazon does not fund itself from earnings and any improvement in its inventory turns will accelerate its growth capacity. On the other hand, I would love to hear your choice of valuation method for high-growth companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ddaeefedd377e0765564f49d50c76b3",
"text": "\"It has little to do with money or finance. It's basic neuroscience. When we get money, our brains release dopamine (read Your Money and Your Brain), and receiving dividends is \"\"getting money.\"\" It feels good, so we're more likely to do it again. What you often see are rationalizations because the above explanation sounds ... irrational, so many people want to make their behavior look more rational. Ceteris paribus a solid growth stock is as good as a solid company that pays dividends. In value-investing terms, dividend paying stocks may appear to give you an advantage in that you can keep the dividends in cash and buy when the price of the security is low (\"\"underpriced\"\"). However, as you realize, you could just sell the growth stock at certain prices and the effect would be the same, assuming you're using a free brokerage like Robin Hood. You can easily sell just a portion of the shares periodically to get a \"\"stream of cash\"\" like dividends. That presents no problem whatsoever, so this cannot be the explanation to why some people think it is \"\"smart\"\" to be a dividend investor. Yes, if you're using a brokerage like Robin Hood (there may be others, but I think this is the only one right now), then you are right on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54284d2a3c8a95d3298247d368e50224",
"text": "\"The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) has this bit to note: The returns of small growth stocks are ridiculously low—just 2.18 percent per year since 1927 (versus 17.47 percent for small value, 10.06 percent for large growth, and 13.99 percent for large value). Where the S & P 500 would be a blend of large-cap growth and value so does that meet your \"\"beat the market over the long term\"\" as 1927-1999 would be long for most people.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3149270826356975b301bd95c0ebabf6",
"text": "\"This question is predicated on the assumption that investors prefer dividends, as this depends on who you're speaking to. Some investors prefer growth stocks (some which don't pay dividends), so in this case, we're covering the percent of investors who like dividend paying stocks. It depends on who you ask and it also depends on how self-aware they are because some people may give reasons that make little financial sense. The two major benefits that I hear are fundamentally psychological: Dividends are like mini-paychecks. Since people get a dopamine jolt from receiving a paycheck, I would predict the same holds true for receiving dividends. More than likely, the brain feels a reward when getting dividends; even if the dividend stock performs lower than a growth stock for a decade, the experience of receiving dividends may feel more rewarding (plus, depending on the institution, they may get a report or see the tax information for the year, and that also feels good). Some value investors don't reinvest dividends, as they believe the price of the stock matters (stocks are either cheap or expensive and automatic reinvestment to these investors implies that the price of a stock doesn't matter), so dividends allow them to rebuild their cash after a buy. They can either buy more shares, if the stock is cheap, or keep the cash if the stock is expensive. Think about Warren Buffett here: he purchased $3 billion worth of shares of Wells Fargo at approximately $8-12 a share in 2009 (from my memory, as people were shocked that be bought into a bank when no one liked banks). Consider how much money he makes from dividends off that purchase alone and if he were to currently believe Wells Fargo was overpriced, he could keep the cash and buy something else he believes is cheaper. In these cases, dividends automatically build cash cushions post buying and many value investors believe that one should always have cash on hand. This second point is a little tricky because it can involve risk assessment: some investors believe that high dividend paying stocks, like MO, won't experience the huge declines of indexes like the SPY. MO routed the SPY in 2009 (29% vs. 19%) and these investors believe that's because it's yield was too desired (it feels safer to them - the index side would argue \"\"but what happens in the long run?\"\"). The problem I have with this argument (which is frequent) is that it doesn't hold true for every high yield stock, though some high yield stocks do show strong resistance levels during bear markets.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b7c2e60b8ffe30c5e3ae6dd7dda50ec9
|
What is a Discount Called in the Context of a Negative Interest Rate?
|
[
{
"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": "a4f2af7a90c5a816a855e15c4044574a",
"text": "\"Negative Yields on Bonds is opposite of Getting profit on your investment. This is some kind of new practice from world wide financial institute. the interest rate is -0.05% for ten years. So a $100,000 bond under those terms would be \"\"discounted\"\" to $100,501, give or take. No, actually what you are going to get out from this investment is after 10 years when this investment is mature for liquidation, you will get return not even your principle $100,000 , but ( (Principle $100,000) minus (Negative Yields @ -0.05) Times ( 10 Years ) ) assume the rates are on simple annual rate. Now anyone may wander why should someone going to buy this kind of investment where I am actually giving away not only possible profit also losing some of principle amount! This might looks real odd, but there is other valid reason for issuing / investing on such kind of bond. From investor prospective: Every asset has its own 'expense' for keeping ownership of it. This is also true for money/currency depending on its size. And other investment possibility and risk factor. The same way people maintain checking account with virtually no visible income vs. Savings account where bank issue some positive rate of interest with various time factor like annually/half-yearly/monthly. People with lower level of income but steady on flow choose savings where business personals go for checking one. Think of Millions of Ideal money with no secure investment opportunity have to option in real. Option one to keeping this large amount of money in hand, arranging all kind of security which involve extra expense, risk and headache where Option two is invest on bond issued by Government of country. Owner of that amount will go for second one even with negative yields on bonds where he is paying in return of security and risk free grantee of getting it back on time. On Issuing Government prospective: Here government actually want people not to keep money idle investing bonds, but find any possible sector to invest which might profitable for both Investor + Grater Community ultimately country. This is a basic understanding on issue/buy/selling of Negative interest bearing bond on market. Hope I could explain it here. Not to mention, English is not my 1st language at all. So ignore my typo, grammatical error and welcome to fix it. Cheers!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "74a6a11df8141bf6906945103103b30f",
"text": "Right, I understand minority interest but it is typically reported as a positive under liabilities instead of a negative. For example, when you are calculating the enterprise value of a company, you add back in the minority interest. Enterprise Value= Market Share +Pref Equity + Min Interest+ Total Debt - Cash and ST Equivalents. EV is used to quantify the total price of a company's worth. If you have negative Min Interest on your books, that will make your EV less than it should be, creating an incorrect valuation. This just doesn't make any sense to me. Does it mean that the subsidiary that they had a stake in had a negative earning?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43cc3e1388828369619c2a9314438375",
"text": "Savings accounts have limitations in case a bank goes belly up and you have a higher amount in the account (more than the insured amount). Mostly big corporations or pension funds cannot rely on a bank to secure their cash but a government bond is secured (with some fine print) and hence they are willing to take negative interest rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b43f330c145b3509335301b690bd3eb",
"text": "There is no interest outstanding, per se. There is only principal outstanding. Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis. The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed. What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding. If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set. The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years. If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years. The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed. Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years. How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan. If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years. It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less. Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens. If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan. If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month. In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!! This is called negative amortization. Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment. You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments. If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan. Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by. For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding). Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments. They don't have to be fixed. For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year. Is the math any different? Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis. Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal. You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning! That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan. All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of the loan. Incorrect. It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!! It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff amount. Your last sentence is correct. The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe. In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount. If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see. In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying. I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion. The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "649824325a61e5fc7fc43c7b20e5cbcc",
"text": "I see another way of looking at this that hasn't been addressed yet. By offering the discount, the company is attempting to change your behavior into doing something irrational, that benefits them at your expense. The company hopes for one (or more) of the following psychological effects to happen to you: The proper thing to do, if you have enough capital to prevent margin calls, it to short-sell the stock at the same instant the price is set, thus locking in the profit. Eventually you can take possession of the shares and deliver them to offset the short -- hopefully before you get a margin call from the stock dropping.",
"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": "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": "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": "5c28da24fe7e4e2c72386e4b0b0fb8ff",
"text": "I know this can be confusing because you tend to think of money being worth the face value. So let's eliminate that for the sake of an example that will be easier to understand. Let's say your friend loaned you rock worth $10 today. He expects you to pay him back an identical rock whenever you can. Now let's also assume that historically the price of rocks tends to go down every year. At some point you will need to buy a rock to pay your friend back. Because they keep getting cheaper, it costs less to buy the payback rock the longer you wait. Replace a dollar with a rock in the example and you have your answer. This is known as the time value of money. In reality, this is priced into the loan (via the interest rate) because the lender very much understands the math going on here. Also, it is more complicated because the longer you delay payment the more interest you pay (pebbles if you will) so it doesn't usually work to your advantage unless they underpriced the loan's interest rate.",
"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": "1cb65507cf8bac0aa0716c6ab3eb142a",
"text": "\"I would say people are generally talking about the prime lending rate. I have heard the prime lending rate defined as \"\"The rate that banks charge each other when they borrow money overnight.\"\" But it often defined as the rate at which banks lend their most creditworthy customers. That definition comes with the caveat that it is not always held to strictly. Either definition has the same idea: it's the lowest rate at which anyone could currently borrow money. The rate for many types of lending is based upon the prime rate. A variable rate loan might have an interest rate of (Prime + x). The prime rate is in turn based upon the Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate that the Fed sets manually. When the news breaks that \"\"the Fed is raising interest rates by a quarter of a point\"\" (or similar) it is the Federal Funds Rate that they control. Lending institutions then \"\"fall in line\"\" and adjust the rates at which they lend money. So to summarize: When people refer to \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\" or \"\"rising\"\" interest rates they are conceptually referring to the prime lending rate. When people talk about the Fed raising/lowering interest rates (In the U.S.) they are referring specifically to the Federal Funds Rate (which ultimately sets other lending rates).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c26484c75879a3b97115ad25d7a5928",
"text": "for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e6372bb007a7316716de34aa3fe6a50",
"text": "Your mortgage represents a negative cash flow of $X for N months. The typical mortgage prepayment doesn't reduce your next payment, but does reduce the length of the mortgage. If you look at the amortization table of a 30 year loan, you might see a payment of $1000 but only $50 going to principal. So if on day one you send an extra $51 or so to the bank, you find that in 30 years you just saved that $1000 payment. In effect, it was a long term bond or CD, yielding the post tax rate of the mortgage. Say your loan were 7%. At 7%, money doubles every 10 years or so. 30 years is 3 doubles or 8X. If I were to offer you $1000 and ask for $7500 in 30 years, you might accept it, with an agreement to buy me out if you refinanced. For me, that would be an investment. Just like buying a bond. In fact, there is a real return, as you see the cash flow at the end. The payments 'not made' are your payback. Those who insist it's not an investment are correct in the strict sense of the word's definition, but pedantic for the fact in practice, the prepayment is a choice to be considered alongside other investment choices. When I have a mortgage, I am the mortgagor, the bank, the mortgagee. Same as a company issuing a bond, the Bank holds my bond and I'm making payments to them. They hold my bond as an investment. There is no question of that. In fact, they package these and sell them as CMOs, groups of mortgages. A pre-payment is me buying back the last coupon on my mortgage. I fail to see the distinction between me 'buying back' $10K in future coupons on my own loan or me investing $10K in someone else's loans. The real question for me is whether this makes sense when rates are so low. At 4%, I'd say it's a matter of prioritizing any high rate debt and any other investments that might yield more. But even so, it's an investment yielding 4%. Over the years, I've developed the priorities of where to put new money - The priorities are debatable. I have my opinion, and my reasons to back them up. In general, it's a balance between risk and return. In my opinion, there's something wrong with ignoring a dollar for dollar match on the 401(k) in most circumstances. Others seem to prefer being 100% debt free before saving at all. There's a balance that might be different for each individual. As I started, the mortgage is a fixed return, with no chance to just get it back if needed. If your cash savings is pretty high, and the choice is a .001% CD or prepay a 4% mortgage, I'd use some funds to pay it down. But not to the point you have no liquid reserves.",
"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": "c956cd96a41c6cc45b9a750211d740ac",
"text": "Part 2 = 12% -5000/0.12 (1 - 1/(1.12^2 ) = -8450.26 Then subtract year 0s 5000 payment if you havent = -13450.26 and then compare to option 2 -2000/0.12 (1 - 1/(1.12^10) = -11300.46 and subtract 20000 -31300.46 As you can see both values are substantially smaller compared to a 4% discount rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "298bc6aaa358239ee51268053527c422",
"text": "I haven't read the terms here but the question may not have a good answer. That won't stop me from trying. Call the real rate (interest rate - inflation) and you'll have what is called negative real rates. It's rare for the overnight real rate to be negative. If you check the same sources for historical data you'll find it's usually higher. This is because borrowing money is usually done to gain an economic benefit, ie. make a profit. That is no longer a consideration when borrowing money short term and is IMO a serious problem. This will cause poor investment decisions like you see in housing. Notice I said overnight rate. That is the only rate set by the BoC and the longer rates are set by the market. The central bank has some influence because a longer term is just a series of shorter terms but if you looked up the rate on long Canadian real return bonds, you'd see them with a real rate around 1%. What happens when the central bank raise or lowers rates will depend on the circumstances. The rate in India is so high because they are using it to defend the rupee. If people earn more interest they have a preference to buy that currency rather than others. However these people aren't stupid, they realize it's the real rate that matters. That's why Japan can get away with very low rates and still have demand for the currency - they have, or had, deflation. When that changed, the preference for their currency changed. So if Canada hast forex driven inflation then the BoC will have to raise rates to defend the dollar for the purpose of lowering inflation from imports. Whether it works or not is another story. Note that the Canadian dollar is very dependant on the total dollar value of net oil exports. If Canada has inflation due too an accelerating economy this implies that there are profitable opportunities so businesses and individuals will be more likely to pay a positive real rate of interest. In that scenario the demand for credit money will drive the real rate of return.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9ee662f5117c791bfe9da94c571a46ad
|
Buy car vs lease vs long term rent for 10 years period
|
[
{
"docid": "5d46edb721a1d2259a5ece1ede3310f4",
"text": "If you plan to keep this asset for ten years then you can take the deprecation of its cost over that time period. For simplicity lets treat that as 120 monthly payments. So at a purchase price of $60,000 you are committing around $500 per month not including vehicle maintenance. I typically allocate around 20 percent of the purchase price of my vehicles for future maintenance costs. Since you have the cash to purchase this outright you have an option not afforded to most people. This adds for additional consideration. Here is an example. You purchase a $60,000 car and put $10,000 down. You finance $50,000 at 2.84% over 60 months. Your total finance cost is $53,693 if you do not miss any payments. The question here is can you make more than $3,693 on the $50,000 that you would retain in this situation over a five year period? I know that I most certainly can and is an excellent example of why I finance my vehicles. Obviously this all goes out the window if you do not have the credit for top rates. I have also negotiated a vehicle maintenance plan with the dealership at the time of my vehicle purchases. Most dealerships offer this service, the key here is negotiating. On my last truck I was able to get an all inclusive maintenance policy for 72 months for 8% of the purchase price. Your mileage will vary with manufacturer and dealership. As described in the comments above it is never beneficial for an individual to lease. You end up paying more for the newer models. I consider that to be a lifestyle choice as it is most certainly not a sound financial decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6dc205d75952b5f81215d237971e9943",
"text": "\"This question has been asked and answered before. Financially, owning a car will be more economical than leasing one in most cases. The reason for this is that leasing arrangements are designed to make a profit for the leasing company over and above the value of the car. A leasing company that does not profit off their customers will not be in business for long. This is a zero-sum game and the leasing customer is the loser. The lion's share of the customer losses are in maintenance and in the event of an accident or other damage. In both cases, leasing arrangements are designed to make a large profit for the owner. The average customer assumes they will never get into an accident and they underestimate the losses they will take on the maintenance. For example, if both oxygen sensors need to be replaced and it would have cost you $800 to replace them yourself, but the leasing company charges you $1200, then BOOM! you just lost $400. If the car is totaled, the customer will lose many thousands of dollars. Leasing contracts are designed to make money for the owner, not the customer. Another way leasing agents make money is on \"\"required maintenance\"\". Most leasing contracts require the leasor to perform \"\"required\"\" maintenance, oil changes, tire rotations, etc. Also, with newer cars manufacturers recalls are common. Those are required as well. Nearly nobody does this maintenance correctly. This gives the agent the excuse to charge the customer thousands of dollars when the vehicle is returned. Bills of $4000 to $6000 on a 3 year lease for failure to perform required maintenance are common. Its items like this that allow the leasing agent to get a profit on what looks like a \"\"good deal\"\" when the customer walked in the door 3 years previously. The advantage of leasing is that it costs less up front and it is more convenient to switch to a different car because you don't have to sell the car.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2bf62c09fe325de41096aaf3e8b4b8f3",
"text": "\"Does your planning include contingencies for Can you afford the late fees, insurance increases, bad credit hits and all the other downsides when this goes bad? Why does she NEED a new car on lease? Personally? I'd go for option B) Do what it takes to have her OWN a car. Why not just have her get a car that costs IN ENTIRE the $3k that would be used for a down payment on a lease? Maybe add a bit of your own money \"\"for old times sake\"\" to the pile? Or a small loan to get to where she can get a usable, dependable car? Say, a $3-5k loan in your name that she's responsible for the payments. $3-10k can get a very dependable old car. 10 great cars for 6k or less Everyone else has been burned by her - for whatever reason. No idea what the reasons are, but she seems to be unable to pay her bills. Why would this time be any different? Your name on a car + someone who can't pay bills = a bad proposition. I would LOVE to help anyone who's been important in my life. Including MY x-wife. But I wouldn't agree to this deal unless I KNEW that I could 100% cover the costs when things go bad - because at this point, odds are they will.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48afeed212c2d44d7878e3a0f08b085b",
"text": "\"I'd probably say \"\"buy\"\" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1866315752d623c85565b72dbfb392fd",
"text": "You should never buy anything that consumes all of your savings. First you should have 6 months living expenses in a liquid account. Second you should be investing for retirement, index funds or ETFs. The longer you have money invested the better off you'll be. Pragmatically speaking you're better off getting the cheapest car that is reliable. Cars cost money, depreciation and money, every day you own them. However I get the urge to splurge. Get a loan, pay 2x the standard payment amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2877ea212c9e3863024c98fb6b9f6fa0",
"text": "In a perfect world scenario you would get a car 2-5 years old that has very little mileage. One of the long standing archaic rules of the car world is that age trumps mileage. This was a good rule when any idiot could roll back an odometer. Chances are now that if you rolled your odometer back the car was serviced somewhere, had inspection or whatever and it is on a report. If seller was found to do this they could face jail time and obviously now their car is almost worthless. Why do I mention this? Because you can take a look at 2011 cars. Those with 20K miles go for just a little more than those with 100K miles. As an owner you will start incurring heavy maintenance costs around 100K on most newer cars. By buying cars with lower mileage, keeping them for a year or two, and reselling them before they get up in miles, you can stay in that magic area where you can drive a pretty good car for $200-300 a month. Note that this takes work on both the buying and selling side and you often need cash to get these cars (dealers are good about siphoning really good used cars to employees/friends). This is a great strategy for keeping costs down and car value up but obviously a lot of people try to do this and it takes work and you have to be willing to settle sometimes on a car that is fine, but not exactly what you want. As for leasing this really gets into three main components: If you are going to do EVERYTHING at a dealership and you want something new or newish you might as well lease. At least then you can shop around for apples to apples. The problem with buying a new/used car from the dealers in perpetuity isn't the buying process. It is the fact that they will screw you on the trade-in. A car that books for 20K may trade-in for 17K. Even if the dealer says they are giving you 20K, then they make you pay list price for the car. I have many many times negotiated a price of a car and then wife brought in our car separately and I can count on ZERO fingers how many times that the dealership honored both sides of the negotiations. Not only did they not honor them but most refused to talk with us after they found out. With a lease you don't have to worry about losing this money in the negotiations. You might pay a little extra (or not since you can shop around) but after the lease you wash your hands of the car. The one caveat to this is the high-end market. When you are talking your Acura, Mercedes, Lexus... It is probably better to buy and trade in every couple years. You lose too much equity by leasing, where it won't cover the trade-in gap and cost of your money being elsewhere. I have a friend that does this and gets a slightly better car every 2-3 years with same monthly payment. Another factor to consider is the price of a car. If your car will be worth over $15K at time of sale you are going to have a hard time selling it by owner. When amounts get this high people often need financing. Yes they can get personal financing but most people are too lazy to do this. So the number of used car buyers on let's say craigslist are way way fewer as you start getting over $10-12K and I have found $15K to be kind of that magic amount. The pro-buy-used side is easy. Aim for those cars around $12-18K that are out there (and many still under warranty). These owners will have issues finding cash buyers. They will drop prices somewhere between book price and dealer trade-in. In lucky cases where they need cash maybe below dealer trade-in. And remember these sellers aren't dealing with 100s let alone 10 buyers. You drive the car for 3-4 years. Maybe it is $7-10K. But now you will get much much closer to book price because there will be far more buyers in this range.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46f295dd712175146f902bb3afbad09b",
"text": "\"You are still paying a heavy price for the 'instant gratification' of driving (renting) a brand-new car that you will not own at the end of the terms. It is not a good idea in your case, since this luxury expense sounds like a large amount of money for you. Edited to better answer question The most cost effective solution: Purchase a $2000 car now. Place the $300/mo payment aside for 3 years. Then, go buy a similar car that is 3 years old. You will have almost $10k in cash and probably will need minimal, if any, financing. Same as this answer from Pete: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/63079/40014 Does this plan seem like a reasonable way to proceed, or a big mistake? \"\"Reasonable\"\" is what you must decide. As the first paragraph states, you are paying a large expense to operate the vehicle. Whether you lease or buy, you are still paying this expense, especially from the depreciation on a new vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to pay for this luxury if the cost is significant to you. That said, it will probably not be a 'big mistake' that will destroy your finances, just not the best way to set yourself up for long-term success.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10c46e0d92feb504ce36be9b95654e06",
"text": "The answer is very simple. Part of the luxury is having the cutting edge technology with the very latest features. The price premium is not just from increased build quality; it's simply a perception. Additionally, 10 years takes its toll on a car. The smooth suspension gets rougher over time, and all the little features start to break down. Part of the price of that car factors in the expense of expected repairs. That's true of every car, but the repairs are more expensive when there are lots of gadgets to break down, especially on imports.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79b11649d690b24c7378ff5f0ec8ef65",
"text": "There are some who argue that you should lease an electric car. These factors are in addition to all the normal pros and cons of leasing vs. buying. The technology is still new and is advancing rapidly. In 2-3 years, the newer model may have significantly improved features, range, and efficiency, as well as lower prices. If you are the type of person to upgrade regularly to the latest and greatest, leasing can make it a smoother transition. It is hard to predict the depreciation of the vehicles. This is both because of the above factors, but also because these kinds of cars are newer and so the statistical models used to predict their future values are less refined. The models for predicting gas car prices have been honed for decades. EV Manufacturers have in the past made some mistakes in their residual value estimations. When you lease a car, you get essentially an option to buy the car at the future predicted residual value. If, at the end of the lease, the market value of the car is higher than the residual value, you can purchase the car at the predetermined price, making yourself some extra money. If the value is lower than the residual, you can return the car or renegotiate. I know a relatively large number of electric vehicle owners. Most or all of the ones who got the vehicle new leased it. The rest bought used vehicles coming off lease, which can also be a good deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b00f0e24f0eb0bf60fbdf10077762a4",
"text": "From strictly a gross revenue point of view, the parking spot is going to yield a higher rate (5.4%) versus a 3% savings account, assuming you have it rented all year. Your break-even point (not considering other expenses) is 7-8 months of rent per year. So, what are things to consider? Here's a few to start with. The parking spot is a nice investment in that you get a decent return, and the potential for appreciation. The savings account/CD will give you a fixed return with no risk. To support your decision, make sure you understand all of the costs and understand all of the downside risk. If you're 50 and this is alot of money to you, be conservative. If you're 25 and have a good job, you can afford to chase the yield.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e663e64de0fd06bc15a34aaa2cfcacb5",
"text": "If the car is in otherwise good shape, it's always less expensive to keep it longer. Think of it this way: you have to buy new tires no matter what. It's just a question of whether or not those new tires are attached to a new car or your current car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fd215464e90bb864b3b516173aaf6ff",
"text": "\"The general answer is: \"\"it depends on how long you want to live there\"\". Here is a good calculator to figure it out: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html Basically, if you plan to move in a few years, then renting makes more sense. It is a lot easier to move from an apartment when your lease is up versus selling a house, which can be subject to fluctuations in the real-estate market. As an example, during the real estate bubble, a lot of \"\"young professional\"\" types bought condos and town homes instead of renting. Now these people are married with kids, need to move somewhere bigger, but they can't get rid of their old place because they can't sell it for what they still owe. If these people had rented for a few years, they would be in a better position financially. (Many people fell for the mantra \"\"If you are renting, you are throwing your money away\"\", without looking at the long-term implications.) However, your question is a little unique, because you mentioned renting for the rest of your life, and putting the savings into an investment, which is a cool idea. (Thinking outside the box, I like it.) I'm going to assume you mean \"\"rent the same place for many years\"\" versus \"\"moving around the country every few years\"\". If you are staying in one place for a long time, I am going to say that buying a house is probably a better option. Here's why: So what about investing? Let's look at some numbers: So, based on the above, I say that buying a house is the way to go (as long as you plan to live in the same place for several years). However, if you could find a better investment than the Dow, or if mortgage interest rates change drastically, things could tip in another direction. Addendum: CrimsonX brought up a good point about the costs of owning a house (upkeep and property taxes), which I didn't mention above. However, I don't think they change my answer. If you rent, you are still paying those costs. They are just hidden from you. Your landlord pays the contractor or the tax man, and then you pay the landlord as part of your rent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5b7a01c6f647e9a59ef22f7f031ff54",
"text": "If you are looking to build wealth, leasing is a bad idea. But so is buying a new car. All cars lose value once you buy them. New cars lose anywhere between 30-60% of their value in the first 4 years of ownership. Buying a good quality, used car is the way to go if you are looking to build wealth. And keeping the car for a while is also desirable. Re-leasing every three years is no way to build wealth. The American Car Payment is probably the biggest factor holding many people back from building wealth. Don't fall into the trap - buy a used car and drive it for as long as you can until the maintenance gets too pricey. Then upgrade to a better used car, etc. If you cannot buy a car outright with cash, you cannot afford it. Period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78b7e7d1ebadbacbc9ae26e90af8340f",
"text": "The first thing that strikes me is: Is this a time-limited offer? Because if you can expect the offer to still be valid in a few weeks, why not just wait that month (which will earn you the money) and buy the car then? The second thing you need to consider is obviously the risk that in the interim, there will be an actual emergency which would require the money that you no longer have. The third thing to consider is whether you need the car now. Do you require a car to get around and your current one is breaking down, perhaps even to the point that repairing it would cost you more than buying a new car and it is currently not safe to drive? If so, compare the cost of repairing to the cost of buying; if the difference is small, and the new car would be more likely to be reliable than the old car after spending the money, then it can make sense to buy a new car and perhaps sell the old one in its current condition to someone who likes to tinker. (Even if you only recover a few hundreds of dollars, that's still money that perhaps you wouldn't otherwise have.) The fourth thing I would consider, especially given the time frame involved, is: Can you get a loan to buy the new car? Even if the interest rate is high, one month's worth of interest expense won't set you back very far, and it will keep the money in your emergency fund for if there is an actual emergency in the weeks ahead. Doing so might be a better choice than to take the money out of the emergency fund, if you have the opportunity; save the emergency fund for when that opportunity does not exist. And of course, without knowing how much you earn, take care to not end up with a car that is no more reliable than what you have now. Without knowing how much you earn and what the car you have in mind would cost, it's hard to say anything for certain, but if the car you have in mind costs less than a month's worth of net pay for you, consider whether it's likely to be reliable. Maybe you are making an absolutely stellar pay and the car will be perfectly fine; but there's that risk. Running the car by a mechanic to have it briefly checked out before buying it may be a wise move, just to make sure that you don't end up with a large car repair expense in a few months when the transmission gives up, for example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c67a88c4227e0bf04bf2a770ce04fe61",
"text": "When getting a car always start with your bank or credit union. They are very likely to offer better loan rate than the dealer. Because you start there you have a data point so you can tell if the dealer is giving you a good rate. Having the loan approved before going to the dealer allows you to negotiate the best deal for the purchase price for the car. When you are negotiating price, length of loan, down payment, and trade in it can get very confusing to determine if the deal is a good one. Sometimes you can also get a bigger rebate or discount because to the dealer you are paying cash. The general advice is that a lease for the average consumer is a bad deal. You are paying for the most expensive months, and at the end of the lease you don't have a car. With a loan you keep the car after you are done paying for it. Another reason to avoid the lease. It allows you to purchase a car that is two or three years old. These are the ones that just came off lease. I am not a car dealer, and I have never needed a work visa, but I think their concern is that there is a greater risk of you not being in the country for the entire period of the lease.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "464cbae1aff1457fc0fc804fb43863e4",
"text": "I have coworker who reported that he leased a Nissan Leaf from 2013-2016 and was offered $4000 off the contracted purchase price at the end of the lease due to a glut of other lessees turning in for a lease on the newest model with greater range. It's not clear that this experience will be repeated by others three years from now, but there is enough uncertainty in the future electric car market that it's quite possible to have faster depreciation on a new vehicle than you might otherwise expect based on experience with conventional internal combustion powered vehicles. Leasing will remove that uncertainty. Purchasing a lease-return can also offer great value. I looked at the price for a lease return + a new battery with the extended range, and it was still significantly cheaper than buying a completely new vehicle.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
76fb14f07713d78d1481e31063e3b6d6
|
How do I protect myself from a scam if I want to help a relative?
|
[
{
"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": "55bb65d0b678ef4788f3d6625191a078",
"text": "\"What can I do to help him out, but at the same time protect myself from any potential scams? Find out why he can't do this himself. Whether your relative is being sincere or not, if he owns both accounts then he should be able to transfer money between them by himself. If you can find a way to solve that issue without involving your bank account, so much the better. Don't settle for \"\"something about authorized payees and expired cards.\"\" Get details, write them down. If possible, get documents. Then go to a bank or financial adviser you can trust and run those details by them to see what they have to say. Even if there's no scam, if what he's trying to do is illegal (even if he doesn't realize it himself) then you want to know before you get involved. You say you're willing to deal with \"\"other issues\"\" separately, but keep in mind that, even if there's no external scam here, those \"\"other issues\"\" could include hefty fees, censures on your own account, or jail time. Ask yourself: Does it make sense that this relative has an account overseas? I don't have any overseas accounts, because I don't do business in other countries. Is your relative a dual-citizen? Does he travel a lot? What country is the overseas account in? How long has he had this account? What bank is it with? Where the money is going is just as important as how it gets there (ie: through your account.) Arguably more so. Keep in mind that many scammers tell their marks not to share what's going on with anyone else. (Because doing so increases the odds of someone telling them to snap out of it.) It's entirely possible he's being scammed himself and just not telling you the whole story because the 419er is telling him to keep it quiet. (Check out that link for more details on common scams that your relative may be unwittingly part of, btw.) Get as many details as possible about what he's doing and why. If he's communicating with anyone else regarding this transfer, find out who. If there are emails, ask his permission to read them and watch for anything suspicious (ie: people who can't spell their own name consistently, constant pressure to act quickly, etc.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04e74a4f44ed1e8e97ae3bfd5f3b6892",
"text": "\"Let's summarize your relative's problem: How is this possible? If both of those statements are true, then he should be able to explain exactly why those statements are true, and then you can explain it to us, and then we can all nod our heads and admit, \"\"Wow, that makes sense. Proceed if you want to.\"\" But until that happens I suggest you take the advice I offered in the first paragraph of this answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3d56d46ed450decb613728608ee35ab",
"text": "Since you mentioned that it is your close relative, he has never done enything dodgy and is wise with his money, then I would take it that you have some implicit trust in him. Now your options in this case are limited to either saying an outright no, which may impact familial ties adversely or to do as he has requested. One way could be to ask him for a mail requesting a short term loan and then transfer the money to his account. Then after a few days/weeks he repays the money back to your account. Now, this may or may not be 100% black & white depending on the legalities of your country but in most countries/cultures giving and taking of personal loans between friends/families is quite common.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b93e0783a91335c0418e313471690db",
"text": "\"Mostly ditto to @grade'eh'bacon, but let me add a couple of comments: Before I did anything, I'd find out more about what's going on. Anytime someone tells me that there's a problem with \"\"security codes or something\"\", I get cautious. Think about what the possibilities are here. Your relative is being scammed. In that case, helping him to transfer his money to the scammer is not the kind of help you really want to give. Despite your firm belief in your relative's integrity, he may have been seduced by the dark side. If he's doing something illegal, I'd be very careful about getting involved. My friends and relatives don't ask me to commit crimes for them, especially not in a way that leaves me holding the bag if things go wrong. Assuming that what is going on here is all legal and ethical, still there is the possibility that you could be making yourself liable for taxes, fees, whatever. At the very least I'd want to know what those are up front. As @Grade'eh'bacon, if he really has a problem with a lost password or expired account, by all means help him fix that problem. But become someone else's financial intermediary has many possible pitfalls.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bc0682855ab73115a7ab506f3c255162",
"text": "\"Government registering of financial institutions usually is to make the government safe (eg FINTRAC is watching for money laundering and financing terrorism) rather than to make it's customers safe. Most governments have many levels of registrations and regulatory bodies. The most stringent requirements are usually obligatory only for banks, and they indeed often include precautions for insuring customer's deposits. Even this insurances have limits, eg in most EU countries the state guarantees deposits up to 100kEUR. If you deposit more and the bank flops - you lose everything over the limit. Companies like forex or currency exchanges usually make their best effort to avoid as many regulations as possible, just because it's costly. If a given company does have guarantee funds and/or customer insurance, it should be advertised and explained on their website. However the whole issue of trust is misguiding. You don't have to \"\"trust\"\" in your grocery store to shop there. There is no government guarantee that the vegetables sold will be tasty. If you buy and the product fells short of your expectations, you call it a loss and start shopping elsewhere. Financial services are no different than any other product. I recommend to your aunt to start small and see how it works. If a service turns out well, she can increase the amount sent through exchange and decrease amount sent through bank. But still, it's always prudent to send eg $1000 every week instead of $4000 once a month. It's more time consuming and cumbersome than having your bank do it - but it's the safety and convenience you're paying premium for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "860266c5f091ca5d690561f10b47edb1",
"text": "\"Here are a handful of measures I take myself: I check my credit reports once in a while and look for anything out of the ordinary. If somebody calls me on the telephone claiming to be from my bank or credit card company, utility, etc. I ask for their number, check it, and call them back. I don't give personal information to people merely claiming to be from a place I do business with. I never fill out ballots for free contests. Most of the time these are scams. When I get a call telling me \"\"you won a free cruise\"\" for a ballot I supposedly filled out at the mall, I say they're lying through their teeth. For excitement, I'll sometimes buy a lotto ticket instead. I'm careful when I surf the web. I don't give my personal information to web sites I can't trust. If they look the least bit shady, I'm out. Also, I use different passwords at different web sites. I avoid using a password from a public terminal, but when I must, I change my password soon after. I'm careful when I download software. I don't install anything I didn't get from a trusted source. I pay for software when necessary, so finding a trusted source is not hard. But, I've heard of people who – to save a buck – would download a pirated application from a shady warez site only to be \"\"gifted\"\" a trojan horse key logging or other spyware along with it. When I no longer need a bill, receipt, statement, etc. or any document containing personal information, I shred it, and I use a shredder that does a micro-cut, not just a strip- or cross-cut. The micro-cut remains go in the green bin with wet and yucky organic waste. When I no longer need a hard drive, I use a secure wiping tool like Darik's Boot & Nuke before reusing. If the drive isn't worth reusing, I'll wipe first then take apart with my Torx screwdriver. Once I have the drive platter, I scratch the heck out of it. Remains go to the community recycling depot. That's all I can think of right now; I probably missed a few :-) So, what do others do? I'm curious, too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec55ffc0afb013f63119e61c57879329",
"text": "\"Personally, I avoid making business deals with friends and relatives. There's just too much of a possibility that things can go wrong. Let's assume that you're honest people and you have no intention of cheating your mother-in-law. Still, all sorts of things could happen that could make it difficult for you to repay the loan. You could lose your job. You could get some big medical expense. Etc. Then what happens? Then your financial problems become family problems. There's a strong temptation when people borrow from relatives to make paying the loan the lowest priority in their budget. \"\"I know I promised to pay \\$X per month, but things are really tight right now and Mom should understand.\"\" Maybe she does understand and can manage without it. But maybe not. And then it becomes a family fight. \"\"You promised you'd pay it back.\"\" \"\"And we will, we're having a hard time right now. Can't you just give us a break?\"\" Etc. Or she might have some extra expense, and say, \"\"Hey, can't you pay a little more this month? I really need some extra cash.\"\" \"\"I'm sorry, we're struggling just to make the regular payments, we can't.\"\" \"\"Well I was willing to loan you all this money. The least you could do is pay me back when I need it.\"\" Etc. You can end up ruining family relationships over money. Your wife can find herself in the position of having to choose whether to side with her mother or her husband. Etc. I'm sure plenty of people do things like this and it works out just great. But there are big risks. And by the way, apparently this was your idea, not your mother-in-laws. I wonder what her reaction is. Is she eager to help out her daughter and son-in-law and had nothing in particular to do with the money anyway? Or is she feeling very imposed on? It's one thing to ask relatives to let you borrow their car for the weekend. Asking someone to loan you $50,000 is a very big request. If one of my kids asked me to loan them $50,000 from my retirement fund, I'd consider that a very presumptuous request. (Unless they needed the money for life-saving surgery for my grandchild or some such.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "839709aa6287a3c0bdadf5e399de228d",
"text": "I would recommend against loans from family members. But if you decide to go down that path take care of the basics: This is a business decision so treat it like one. I would add that the situation you describe sounds extremely generous to your family member. I'd look at standard loan agreements (ie. in the marketplace) and model your situation more on them - if you do this, even with you paying a premium, you'd never come up with something as generous as what you have described.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7488478ce920b35c3d40540eac3f9dfc",
"text": "Most modern bank accounts can be set up to automatically pay bills for anyone, even someone who has no control over the account. This account would be in a trustee's name for the untrustworthy party. An automatic transfer could be set up from the source account to the irresponsible party's bank account to pay their allowance. It would be wise to remove all overdraft capability from the recipients account, but the whole system might help them learn some responsibility. There are more formal legal structures for forming a long term care-taking trust (with spendthrift provisions to protect the trust from legal action). The trust would need to be maintained by a trustee, resulting in maintenance fees on the principle. It might also help to know if there are legally recognized factors that impair the beneficiaries ability to take care of themselves (substance abuse, depression, age, mental impairment, etc.), but depending on state law, trusts can be designed very flexibly to cover the lifetime of an heir and even their heirs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "288d276228f14c790a00ed38f2cbcab0",
"text": "Go to the police. This is fraud and is illegal. Sure, this will hurt your friend but better now then when he starts abusing of his position to fraud even more people... Original comment by Bakuriu sorry for not giving credit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29804bab79f47aa6d3252357b0decc82",
"text": "\"I would write them a check or give them cash money. There are payment receipt forms available online, you can print one of have them fill it out and sign it. Just google \"\"private party receipt\"\". Money transfer (via bank account or Paypal) is also an option, but in my opinion it's more convenient to meet up and handle it in person. If you want, you can have them meet you at a notary public's office (your local bank branch should have one) and have the receipt notarized. I don't think it's a scam, but make sure you are paying the right person.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85c8b5fc25546611c4d7aa05d80c5060",
"text": "\"It's pretty easy for foreign scammers to get a US phone number or email. A domestic bank account is a little harder. Very likely the direct contact is a US citizen or a legal immigrant. The Nigerian may be completely made-up to throw you off the scent. And that person can be found, dunned, or deported, and there's even a small chance of reversing the bank transfers. It's also hard for foreign scammers to sound American on the phone, again suggesting a domestic scam or one with domestic agents. If you or your son is willing to do a serious amount of skill-building and legwork, you can uncover evidence by filing a lawsuit. Once you have done so, you can use the legal processes of discovery to force banks etc. to give you information they would never give willingly. There are countless details. Lawyers get paid to get the details right. Suing actual people can backfire, they can countersue. But since you do not know their real name, you would probably be filing a \"\"John Doe\"\" lawsuit. \"\"John Doe\"\" is a placeholder: the idea being that you will later, through discovery, uncover the defendants' real names. For a novice exploring the legal system for the first time, there's a big advantage - John Doe never countersues or quashes, he never gets in your way or wastes your time... heck, he never even shows up in court! And when you collect evidence via discovery, you can take that to law enforcement or immigration. It goes without sayi-- well, there's no need to go into that. Just realize you did goof, and make sure you learn the lessons.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55ffd718f6d814e05d9b1f6be1336852",
"text": "\"With regard to your edit (although I didn't downvote): one way to reduce the security risk is to separate the payment from the ability to drain your account. A considerable part of the security risk is inherent in giving people a number which is directly linked to a bank account where you keep all your money. If you don't want that risk, don't do that. Instead of (or in addition to) trying to reduce the chance of fraud, you can reduce the impact of fraud, even if it occurs, by not paying for things using the details of an account where you have all your money. Trying to protect against fraud while keeping all your money in the account is sort of like carrying around thousands of dollars in cash in your wallet and then worrying about how to defend against robbery. Yes, you can carry a weapon or hire a bodyguard, but it's probably simpler to just not carry that much money in the first place. You already mentioned one solution with your option #1, which is to just keep a small amount of money in a separate account and use that for online payments. Assuming you can easily transfer money in and out of this account via online banking, this effectively is what you say you want in your edit: you log in to your bank online, but rather than \"\"informing it\"\" you're about to make a payment, you just transfer money in. You'll probably have to keep a small amount of money in the account to keep it open, but if this is an important issue for you, that shouldn't be that big a deal. Another solution is a credit card. With a credit card, you simply make the payment online. In the US, if the merchant (or someone else stealing the info) makes fraudulent charges, the credit card company assumes the liability and the consumer suffers only the inconvenience of having to get a new card issued. I don't know what the UK laws are regarding credit vs. debit fraud, but some sites I found seem to suggest that credit cards have fraud protection in the UK as well. This is probably worth looking into if you are concerned about fraud.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "074ea5e57c752ea120f2017f3eceb057",
"text": "\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff3724cefbcaa8e967a9ddbb6bdea607",
"text": "I think there are two options: You invest for very close friends, who trust you completely. In this case, I don't see why you need legal formalities. Just take their money, invest, and return the profits (or losses) to them. They'll know that you invest it as well as you can (rather than spend it on your dream vacation), simply because they trust you. And in case they never get to see most of their money back - they'll know that you've tried your best, and won't be upset with you. You invest for people who trust you, but not 100%. In this case, don't take their money. If you lose (and in Forex, you most likely will) then you'll lose not only money, but also your friends. Even if the legal documents would prove that you were honset, and that they knew what they're getting into, they'll still be mad at you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e8dbd3c502aa863aaad592f9507ebda",
"text": "Am I right to worry about both of these? Of course. Who carries $75K in cash for no good reason? Your friend got the cash from somewhere, didn't he? If its legit - there's paper trail to show. Same for your parents. If you/they can show the legit paper trail - there's nothing to worry about, the hassle, at worse, is a couple of letters to the IRS. If the money is not legit (your friend is selling crack to the kids in the hood and your parents robbed a 7/11 to give you the money, for example) - there may be problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "730426820d883cc22c2fb9d03728ceba",
"text": "\"This is the biggest blunder I see in money handling. \"\"Oh I'm a good person and everyone knows my intentions are good. And they're really happy with me right now, so it'll stay that way forever, right? So I can just do anything and they'll trust me.\"\" And then in hindsight 10 years later, the person realizes \"\"wow, I was really stubborn and selfish to just assume that. No wonder it blew up.\"\" Anyway, to that end, your requirement that all the money be in one account and \"\"this will simplify taxes\"\" is horsepuckey. No one will believe a legitimate financial advisor needs that, but it's exactly what a swindler would do. And that's the problem. If anything goes wrong, their trust in you will be forgotten, some will say you intended to scam all along, and the structure will be the first thing to convict you. Money makes everyone mistrusting. Ironically, the concept is called a \"\"trust\"\", and there's a wide body of law and practice for Person X responsibly handling the money of Person Y. The classic example is Person Y is a corporation (say, a charity) and Person X is on the Board of Directors. It's the same basic thing. The doctrine is:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56fb73a2e8ec4fb502a48d6384f1265e",
"text": "Yes, it is a scam. Think about it: Why would a stranger offer to give you money? Why would she need you to pay her own employees? She wouldn't. It is a scam. You have more to lose than just the $25 that is in the account. Just as has happened to your dad before, you will be receiving money that is not real, but paying real money out somewhere else. One more thing: If your dad has fallen for these scams so many times that he can't get a bank account anymore, why are you still taking financial advice from him?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3381caa7edc086a41211ca618056174",
"text": "The price of the loan may be justified if you're considered a high-risk applicant for some reason (e.g. you're putting very little money in initial payment), and if it includes all the associated expenses. What is more relevant to your situation is that you're probably better off renting. Think about it: your $300'000 house will require some repairs in those 30 years (let's estimate those at $100'000). That means in 30 years you'll build $200'000 of equity spending $720'000 on it. Of course this assumes that the value of the house will remain constant. You're effectively be throwing away $520'000, or more than $1'400 a month. If you can rent a place for $1'400 a month or less, you'll build more equity by renting that place for 30 years and saving the excess money in a bank account. If you consider the interest that money in your bank account will earn you (e.g. 3% annually), you'll build more than $200'000 equity in 30 years even if you spend as much as $1'650 on your rent and save only $350 a month.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3032f0c1e019306a1cce6d9b7e359c4e
|
How to check the paypal's current exchange rate?
|
[
{
"docid": "e0011c2d147a78e3b4afab4acd9ea44c",
"text": "PayPal does charge a premium, both for sending and receiving. Here's how you find their rates:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e9d9f9cdbfb2ddae39e31b503360c5e",
"text": "The Paypal 'classic' site option has now been removed and you will not know what you will be charged UNTIL YOU COMMIT TO BUY. Paypal told me today ( brexit day 24th ) that their site is NOT connected to the Ebay site so when Ebay tells me '$77.00 approximately £52.43' for an item I would in fact pay £59.62. You will Not be aware of this UNTIL you commit to by. Paypal informs me there are no plans to restore the 'classic' option Paypal site.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a22174c44403030698e39181361ab771",
"text": "fx-rate.net offers a AUDUSD exchange rate comparison, which includes paypal: Currencyfair $1.14 Transferwise $ 2.29 Worldremit $ 3.50 Xendpay $ 3.71 Tranzfers $ 5.52 Ukforex $ 7.35 Skrill $ 15.13 Paypal $ 25.77 Kantox $ 27.76 http://fx-rate.net/currency-transfer/?c_input=AUD&cp_input=USD",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8def29393e303b6be727289894f80600",
"text": "\"FYI, just found this (https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#8) \"\"8.9 Currency Conversion Currency Conversion 2.5% added to the exchange rate The Currency Conversion spread applies whenever a currency conversion is required to complete your transaction. The exchange rate is determined by a financial institution and is adjusted regularly based on market conditions. Adjustments may be applied immediately and without notice to you. When your payment is funded by a debit or credit card and requires a currency conversion, you consent to and authorize PayPal to convert the currency in place of your debit or credit card issuer. You have the right to have your card issuer perform the currency conversion and can choose this option during checkout on your transaction review page before you complete the transaction.\"\" 2.5%!! Can this be true?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3dda95b6fe5e60b7c1a455d81fc346f",
"text": "\"I cannot speak for Paypal specifically and I doubt anyone who doesn't actually work on their internal automated payment systems could. However, I can speak from experiencing in working on automated forex transaction systems and tell you what many institutions do and it is often NOT based on live rates. There is no law stating an institution must honor a specific market exchange rate. Institutions can determine their own rates how and when they want to. However, there is some useful information on their website: https://www.paypal.com/an/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/sell/mc/mc_convert-outside \"\"The most readily available information on currency exchange rates is based on interbank exchange rates. Interbank exchange rates are established in the course of currency trading among a global network of over 1,000 banks, and are not available through consumer or retail channels.\"\" This leads me to believe they pull exchange rates from either Oanda or XE periodically and then use these rates throughout the day to conduct business. Paypal does not disclose who they use to determine rates. And it's highly doubtful they do this for every transaction (using live rates). Even if they did, there would be no way for you to check and be certain of a particular exchange rate as paypal states: \"\" Consumers may use these rates as a reference, but should not expect to use interbank rates in transactions that involve currency conversion. To obtain actual retail rates, contact your local financial institution or currency exchange, or check the rate displayed in your PayPal transaction.\"\" This is partly because rates can change by the second just like stock prices or anything else which is susceptible to the open market's variables of supply, demand news events etc. So, even if you check the rates on Oanda (which you can do here: http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/) you are not going to get a 100% accurate representation of what you would get by doing an exchange immediately afterwards from Paypal or any other financial institution. However, if you want to estimate, using Oanda's currency converter will likely get you close in most scenarios. That is assuming Paypal doesn't charge a premium for the exchange, which they may. That is also assuming they use live rates, it's also possible they only update their rates based on market rates periodically and not for every transaction. You may want to test this by checking the exchange rate on your transaction and comparing that to the Oanda rates at the same time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12c783ab58e622f4b75a45d00cc7d18a",
"text": "There is a way I discovered of finding the current exchange rate before committing to buy, go to send payments, put in your own second email, pay 1gbp as the amount and it will give you the exchange rate and fees in your own currency, in my case euro, before you have to click on send payment",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29cf5583c86e0216a19eb093e877ba35",
"text": "Whenever you pay or withdraw some fund from your account, paypal takes approx 3% of the current currency value along with the fees. i.e. If you are paying/withdraw 100 unit of US Dollars to British pounds and if the current convertion rate is 1$=0.82GBP, then consider reducing 3% of the actual currency rate. So, the approximate magnitude will be 0.82*97% (100-3=97) = 0.7954. So, 1$=0.7954GBP. This formula will not give you 100% accurate value but will help of course. Captain",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cbfaa8e5b417b674e4a7ec3116770215",
"text": "PayPal charges a 2.5% currency conversion fee to exchange funds from one currency to another. That means, the receiver would receive $ 9.75. Read More",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccef86861b5918e8ad02925f6b4ea9c4",
"text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4365e9c6ffd3fc7b9acb7f2a38cece51",
"text": "I used MoneyCorp - they typically charge you approximately 2% on top of the official exchange rate. You would probably need to declare that in your home country - I do not know Pakistan rules so can't help there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f668293a44aa11b7f4bf48fcf050ab1d",
"text": "If I remember correctly my own experience : no you can't. Paypal will block the money even if it's only for online payement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "625b4ac57726954c615a0f324b509988",
"text": "There are several red flags here. can they get my bank account info in any way from me transferring money to them? Probably yes. Almost all bank transactions are auditable, and intentionally cause a money track. This track can be followed from both sides. If they can use your bank account as if they were you, that is a bit deeper than what you are asking, but yes they (and the polish cops) can find you through that transfer. I did look up the company and didn't find any scam or complaints concerning them. Not finding scams or complains is good, but what did you find? Did you find good reviews, the company website, its register, etc, etc? How far back does the website goes (try the wayback machine) Making a cardboard front company is very easy, and if they are into identity theft the company is under some guy in guam that never heard of poland or paypal. As @Andrew said above, it is probably a scam. I'd add that this scam leverages on the how easier is to get a PayPal refund compared to a regular bank transfer. It is almost impossible to get the money back on an international transaction. Usually reverting a bank transfer requires the agreement in writing of the receiver and of both banks. As for paypal, just a dispute from the other user: You are responsible for all Reversals, Chargebacks, fees, fines, penalties and other liability incurred by PayPal, a PayPal User, or a third party caused by your use of the Services and/or arising from your breach of this Agreement. You agree to reimburse PayPal, a User, or a third party for any and all such liability. (source) Also, you might be violating the TOS: Allow your use of the Service to present to PayPal a risk of non-compliance with PayPal’s anti-money laundering, counter terrorist financing and similar regulatory obligations (including, without limitation, where we cannot verify your identity or you fail to complete the steps to lift your sending, receiving or withdrawal limit in accordance with sections 3.3, 4.1 and 6.3 or where you expose PayPal to the risk of any regulatory fines by European, US or other authorities for processing your transactions); (emphasis mine, source) So even if the PayPal transfer is not disputed, how can you be sure you are not laundering money? Are you being paid well enough to assume that risk?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0878af8aa13a09e310192c9020de479d",
"text": "For those who are interested, I am answering my own question: We used Postbank and transferred 6000 Euro, we chose to Transfer in US$, and selected Shared Fees. There were three fees in total: All in all, I paid ~37$; this is about half of what I expected; and I got a perfect exchange rate. Postbank might have its downsides, but it seems they are still a good deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd2f1fc30829819c8c5653ecd6f4f808",
"text": "As an Indian resident you can open an Resident Foreign Currency Account, i.e. an USD account. This facility is provided by all major banks. I am not sure if PayPal would transfer money to these accounts or would convert. The alternative is to give this account number along with other Bank details to the company in US and ask them to send money via remittance services.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb9b830ba43c5a42c6f41b9e1714634b",
"text": "PayPal will be contacting you shortly, I'm sure. You'll see the reversal on their site in a few days as well as a fee from their end I bet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4b740c53cd6ff4f2ff8b29ed3c99642",
"text": "I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. How do you plan to do this? If you are using a debit or credit card on a CAD account, then you will pay that bank's exchange rate to pay for goods and services that are billed in foreign currency. If you plan on buying goods and services from merchants that offer to bill you in CAD for items that are priced in foreign currency (E.g. buying from Amazon.co.uk GBP priced goods, but having Amazon bill your card with equivalent CAD) then you will be paying that merchant's exchange rate. It is very unlikely that either of these scenarios would result in you paying mid-market rates (what you see on xe.com), which is the average between the current ask and bid prices for any currency pair. Instead, the business handling your transaction will set their own exchange rate, which will usually be less favorable than the mid-market rate and may have additional fees/commission bolted on as a separate charge. For example, if I buy 100 USD worth of goods from a US vendor, but use a CAD credit card to pay, the mid-market rate on xe.com right now indicates an equivalent value of 126.97 CAD. However the credit card company is more likely to charge closer to 130.00 CAD and add a foreign transaction fee of maybe $2-3, or a percentage of the transaction value. Alternatively, if using something like Amazon, they may offer to bill the CAD credit card in CAD for those 100 USD goods. No separate foreign transaction fee in this case, but they are still likely to exchange at the less favorable 130.00 rate instead of the mid-market rates. The only way you can choose to pay in the cheapest equivalent currency is if you already have holdings of all the different currencies. Then just pay using whichever currency gets you the most bang for your buck. Unless you are receiving payments/wages in multiple currencies though, you're still going to have to refill these accounts periodically, thus incurring some foreign transaction fees and being subject to the banker's exchange rates. Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers? It depends on who will be handling your transaction. Amazon will tell you at the checkout what exchange rate they will apply if you are having them convert a bill into your local currency for you. For credit/debit card transactions processed in a different currency than the attached account, you need to look at your specific agreement or contact the bank to see which rate they use for daily transactions (and where you can obtain these rates), whether they convert on the day of the transaction vs. the day it posts to your account, and how much they add on ($ and/or %) in fees and commission.",
"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": "2baba78dfdae88f69f0fe2537b25cb3a",
"text": "According to Paypal, they support transactions in Ethiopia: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/country-worldwide https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/api/country_codes/ However those appear to be limited to transferring money out of the country. (link) There is an article here (link) which talks about how to transfer money from paypal back to your bank in Ethiopia. It sounds like you have to set up a US bank account, withdraw the funds to that then somehow transfer the money from their to your bank. NOTE: I have no relationship to any of the sites above, nor do I know if the information is accurate or the trustworthiness of those businesses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "260f08aa3ed67443f642e7942a91ec08",
"text": "It will cost the same no matter what currency you use, unless you have access to a deal with a currency exchange that gives you an especially favourable conversion rate for a particular currency. If the current exchange rates are US$1.70 to the £, CA$1.80 to the £ and HK$12.50 to the £, then £1, US$1.70, CA$1.80 and HK$12.50 are just four different ways of writing the same amount of money. So whether you pay in US$, CA$ or HK$ it's the same amount of money that you're paying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58f356edc765539400f4a3ea5ef4d3b4",
"text": "Yes. I have a US based website that accepts payments via PayPal and can confirm we have many customers from India. Here is a list of countries PayPal supports. Note typically there are some additional fees associated with currency conversion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47b1fe6ea3938c0a89565d110d6fdfd8",
"text": "You probably can get away with only updating the exchange rates once a day and specify that any prices quoted in units other than your home currency are estimates only. If you're planning to accept more than one currency as payment, I'd (a) see about whatever regulations there are for doing so, and (b) build in a nice spread for yourself if you're allowed to, since it is a service you're providing to your customers. If you Google currency converter the first result is just that: a currency converter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf49cfcd2a5ddfdcc47d4ebf7667b29",
"text": "I'm not confident that the requirements for 2017 are up yet, but assuming they don't change much from those of 2016, then probably not if you have no other earnings this year. If you make $500 a month, then you will make $6,000 this year. This is below the filing requirements for most taxpayers, unless you are married but filing separately. At the end of 2017 you should tally up your earnings (including earnings from other sources) find which category you find yourself in on the table, and make a final determination of whether you'll need to file.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bdf80d9330b8299955a8d7d27e816778
|
Want to buy a car but have not enough money
|
[
{
"docid": "1b7c1624d7d04d8c11b7637127205547",
"text": "\"When your dream car is not just 200 times your disposable income but in fact 200 times your whole monthly salary, then there is no way for you to afford it right now. Any attempt to finance through a loan would put you into a debt trap you won't ever dig yourself out. And if there are any car dealerships in your country which claim otherwise, run away fast. Jon Oliver from Last Week tonight made a video about business practices of car dealerships in the United States which sell cars on loans to people who can't afford them a while ago. As usual: When a deal seems too good to be true, it generally isn't true at all. After a few months, the victims customers usually end up with no car but lots of outstanding debt they pay off for years. So how do you tell if you can afford a car or not? A new car usually lives for about 10-20 years. So when you want to calculate the monthly cost of owning a new car, divide the price by 120. But that's just the price for buying the vehicle, not for actually driving it. Cars cost additional money each month for gas, repairs, insurance, taxes etc. (these costs depend a lot on your usage pattern and location, so I can not provide you with any numbers for that). If you have less disposable income per month (as in \"\"money you currently have left at the end of each month\"\") than monthly cost of purchase plus expected monthly running costs, you can not afford the car. Possible alternatives:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ac4094c5932096f13faf9926cfb1373a",
"text": "\"I think the answer to how much you \"\"should\"\" spend depends on a few more questions: Once you answer these questions I think you'll have a better idea of what you should spend. If you have no financial goals then what kind of car you buy doesn't really matter. But if your goals are to build and accumulate wealth both in the short and long term then you should know that, by the numbers, a car is terrible financial investment. A new car loses thousands of dollars in value the moment you drive it off the lot. Buy the cheapest, reliable commuter you can ($5k or less) and use the extra money to pay off your debts. Then once your debts are paid off start investing that money. If you continue this frugal mindset with your other purchases (what house to buy, what food to eat, what indulgences to indulge in, etc...) and invest a bit, I think you'll find it pretty easy to create a giant amount of wealth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67e35bdb72a7bf29c81b0b88865805c6",
"text": "\"Neat points but with regards to your first point there is no car financing to \"\"pay off\"\" unless you take on debt. And few Americans have or can easily accumulate the cash in hand to buy a $15K-30K vehicle. Sure, you can definitely live without debt, but buying a home, a car or making other sizable purchases is not possible under such circumstances unless you make a greater than average salary and are remarkably frugal, including an affordable, tenable living situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6d49c1b2838bd282dd66634ac8411af",
"text": "Each of us makes our own way in life, making choices based upon or own needs and desires. Some of us choose to live simple lives, others choose more complex lives where we earn and spend more. There are several points which one should examine and consider. Consider that the market for new cars is not the entire population, but only the fraction of the population that can afford to spend $20,000+ for a new car (at $400+/month payments). You quickly realize that most people making below median income cannot afford to purchase a new car. They buy used cars, from the pool of cars left after depreciation has reduced the price of the car by half (or more). One rule of thumb might be to spend < 10% of your income on transportation. Which might allow for a $400-500/month car payment for half of families. And when you keep a car for 10 years, that can mean two cars, one payment-free. Consider that a new Honda Accord or Toyota Camry is $20-30,000 which is 2/3 to 3/4 the price of a new luxury car. When I purchased my (used) Civic several years ago, the price was nearly 1/2 the price of a new luxury car. I recently purchased a (used) luxury car (7 year old, 70,000 miles) less than 1/3 the new price. The leather interior looks new, more amenities, better performance than my Civic, the car runs well, and with proper maintenance, I expect to drive it for 2-3 years and pass it along to one of my children.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "310791d9ac43bf6dfa29b6a6bbfa79aa",
"text": "Ignoring that liability car insurance is usually a state mandated requirement and that all banks require full coverage, there are quite a few reasons to buy it. No matter how much money you have, you can't really guarantee that you can recover financially from an accident. Yes, you can buy a new car. But what happens if you are sued because the other driver died or is now in a long term coma? The legal costs alone would financially bury most people. It's even worse if you are rich. Let's say someone rear ended you. If you had no insurance (again ignoring the legality here), you can bet their attorney would take a look at your considerable financial assets and do whatever it took to get as much of that as possible. The legal fees alone of defending yourself at trial would likely far outstrip everything else. And that's just one little situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2c99ff02914e5fdf4bcd544d9e7b608",
"text": "\"It's all about what you value personally. I'm mid-30s and drive a $40K \"\"luxury\"\" sports car. I also happen to wear a $6K wristwatch every day. I purchased both of these items because I thought they were beautiful when I saw them. On the flip side, because I spent 6 years living below the poverty line, I instinctively spend almost nothing on a daily basis. My food budget is less than $50 a week, and I never go out to eat. I wear my clothes and shoes and coats until they have holes, and I drove my previous car (a Toyota) into the ground. My cell phone is 5 years old. The walls of my apartment are bare. I don't have cable TV, I don't subscribe to newspapers or magazines, and I don't own a pet. In all of these cases I don't feel like I'm \"\"sacrificing\"\" anything; food and clothes and cell phones and pets just don't matter to me. If you truly feel that you're missing something in your life by not having a luxury car -- that owning one would be more satisfying than owning the corresponding tens of thousands of dollars -- then go for it. Just be sure to consider all the other things that money could buy before you do. Lastly, buy in cash. Don't make monthly payments unless you enjoy giving money away to the bank!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b62649799769028e783df7241b86e9b",
"text": "\"Given the state of the economy, and the potential of a rough near future for us recent grads (i.e. on/off work), I would recommend holding off on large purchases while your life is in flux. This includes both a NEW car and purchasing a house. My short answer is: you need a reliable vehicle, so purchase a used car, from a major dealer (yes this will add a fairly high premium, but easier financing), that is 4-5 years old, or more. Barring the major dealer purchase, be sure to get a mechanic to check out a vehicle, many will offer this service for a reasonable payment. As people point out, cars these days will run for another 100k miles. You will NOT have to pay anywhere near $27,000 for this vehicle. You may need to leverage your 10k for a loan if you choose to finance, but it should not be a problem, especially as you seem to imply an established credit history. In addition to this, start saving your money for the house you would like to eventually get. We have no idea where you live, but, picking rough numbers, assuming a 2 year buy period, 20% down, and a $250,000 home, the down payment alone will require you to save ~$2,000/month starting now. Barring either of these options, max out your money to tax sheltered accounts (your Roth IRA, work 401k, or a regular IRA) asap. Obviously, do not deplete your emergency fund, if anything, increase it. 10k can be burned through in a heartbeat. Long Answer: I purchased a brand new car, right out of school, at a reasonable interest rate. Like you, I can afford this vehicle, however, if someone were to come to me today (3.5 years later) and offer me the opportunity to take it back and purchase a 4-5 year used vehicle, at a 4-5 year used car price, albeit at a much higher interest rate (since I financed), it would be about a 0.02 second decision. I like my car, but, I'd like the differential cash savings between it and a reliable used car more. $27,000 is also fairly expensive for a new vehicle, there are many, very nice vehicles, for 21-23k. I still would not consider these priced appropriate to spend your money on them, but they exist. However, you do very much need a reliable vehicle, and I think you should get one. On the home front, your $400 all inclusive rent is insanely cheap. Many people spend more than that on property tax and PMI each year, so anyone who throws the \"\"You're throwing money away!\"\" line at you is blowing smoke to justify their own home purchase. Take the money you would have spent on a mortgage, and squirrel it away. Do your own due diligence and research the home market in your area and decide for yourself if you think home prices have bottomed and will stay there, have further to go, or are going to begin to rise. That is a decision only you can make for yourself. I'd add a section about getting expenses under control, but you said you could save 50% of your takehome pay. This is an order of magnitude above the average. Good job. Try doing 50% for 4 months, then calculate your actual amount. Then try to beat it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dbacdfc45f0f936cc1fe6137cec4fab",
"text": "The only way this suggestion works is if you can realize a higher rate of return on the investment than the payoff of the loan. There's no guarantee of that, so it can be a risky strategy from the standpoint that you'll end up paying more for the car when all is said and done.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f6fd8de83b35661dd1ec3881b92ad1f",
"text": "Yes, but should you be even trying to get a mortgage if you can't aford at least a 5% deposit? Prove you do want the house by doing without a new car for a few years...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1380194c0b6436ed04951838f3289501",
"text": "If you have enough money to buy a car in full, that probably means you have good credit. If you have good credit, car dealerships will often offer 0% loans for either a small period of time, like 12 months, or the entire loan. Taking a 0% loan is obviously more optimal than paying the entire lump sum up front. You can take the money and invest in other things that earn you more than 0%. However, most dealerships offer a rebate OR a 0% loan. Some commenters below claim that the rebate is usually larger than the saved interest, so definitely do the math if you have that option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0216a3f4087ad61f309381cdde5f28f6",
"text": "What percentage of your savings is the full car payment? If it's a significant chunk, then I'd finance some of the cost of the car in order to maintain liquidity.",
"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": "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": "6cd61dc0b24ddb05e5df77719c29cbd3",
"text": "Regardless of your circumstances, the amount of money you should put into a car is about $6000-8000 or the amount of cash you actually have, whichever is less. You can get a very reliable gently-used car in that price range, and a car that's plenty good to drive for basically whatever your budget is, down to about $1500-2000 or so. Spending more is never a financially sound decision; it's purely a luxury expenditure. Buying a car with a loan is always a financially bad decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0023829af08e1f223028c03a4ed6db45",
"text": "You are really showing some wisdom here, and congratulations on finishing college. Its a lot about likelihoods. If you buy a new car, there is something like a 99.5% chance you will get a car that will not need repairs. If you buy a car for $1200 there is probably a 20% chance that the car will only need minimal repairs. So the answer is there is no real guarantee that spending any amount of money you will end up with a car with no repairs. You also can't assume that with buying a car it will immediately need repairs. Its possible, that you could spend 1200 on a car and it will need an oil change. In three months it might need brakes and in 6 months tires. If that is the case, you could save up the money for repairs. Have you looked for a car? It will take some work, but you might be able to find something in good condition for your budget. If you shop for a loan, go with a good credit union or local bank. Mostly you are looking for a low rate. However, I would advise against it. You worked so hard on getting out of school without debt, why start now? Be weird and buy a car for cash. Heck someone may be able to loan you a car for a short time while you save some money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bb4e06785887fbf93def08101666f95",
"text": "\"For the future: NEVER buy a car based on the payment. When dealers start negotiating, they always try to have you focus on the monthly payment. This allows them to change the numbers for your trade, the price they are selling the car for, etc so that they maximize the amount of money they can get. To combat this you need to educate yourself on how much total money you are willing to spend for the vehicle, then, if you need financing, figure out what that actually works out to on a monthly basis. NEVER take out a 6 year loan. Especially on a used car. If you can't afford a used car with at most a 3 year note (paying cash is much better) then you can't really afford that car. The longer the note term, the more money you are throwing away in interest. You could have simply bought a much cheaper car, drove it for a couple years, then paid CASH for a new(er) one with the money you saved. Now, as to the amount you are \"\"upside down\"\" and that you are looking at new cars. $1400 isn't really that bad. (note: Yes you were taken to the cleaners.) Someone mentioned that banks will sometimes loan up to 20% above MSRP. This is true depending on your credit, but it's a very bad idea because you are purposely putting yourself in the exact same position (worse actually). However, you shouldn't need to worry about that. It is trivial to negotiate such that you pay less than sticker for a new car while trading yours in, even with that deficit. Markup on vehicles is pretty insane. When I sold, it was usually around 20% for foreign and up to 30% for domestic: that leaves a lot of wiggle room. When buying a used car, most dealers ask for at least $3k more than what they bought them for... Sometimes much more than that depending on blue book (loan) value or what they managed to talk the previous owner out of. Either way, a purchase can swallow that $1400 without making it worse. Buy accordingly.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
350189e02b49d0d6b38abe63d58257bc
|
What percent of my salary should I save?
|
[
{
"docid": "977c686aff58909db85369becaa8c3bc",
"text": "\"I am pretty sure you could find a number of financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number, but the rule of thumb I like best is Save a dime of every dollar. 10% (Savings means save for retirement, not vacations.) Here is a nice article from radio personality Clark Howard with some adjustments based on your age: Saving for retirement later in life? If you're getting started saving for retirement later in life, the dime out of every dollar rule won't cut it for you. So for you, The Baltimore Sun has crunched the following numbers: Jayraj has a particularly good and just as simple bit of math. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/30751/91 Your retirement and financial planning should not end with a flat percentage. In fact, the chances that any simple math formula is adequate are very low. My percentages (or Jayraj's simple math) are only starting places. If you are at the point where you are asking \"\"where do I start\"\", starting with this super easy no-brainer approach is great because the key is starting and doing it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2c923b73acb20d13c877daff38b68aa",
"text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a0f3d6a2130f45b02a8d98d61f593f8",
"text": "A single percentage figure makes little sense here as you are asking for a bunch of different things:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f4622ab3f6c1ad091de3f50fc108f36",
"text": "\"What percent of my salary should I save? is tightly coupled with its companion, What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? Interestingly, Mr.Christer's answer, 10%, is the number that plugs into the equation that I reference. Jay's 25X rule is part of this. We start with the assumption that one's required income at retirement will be 80% of their pre-retirement income. That's high by some observations, low by others. A quick look at the expenses that go away in retirement - The above can total 35-40% It would be great if it ended there, but there are costs that go up. The above extra spending is tough to nail down, after all, you knew what you spent, and what's going away, but the new items? Crapshoot. (For non-native speakers - this refers to a game with dice, meaning a random event) Again, referencing Mr Christer's answer \"\"financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number,\"\" I'm going to disagree with that soundbyte. Consider, when retirement is 30 years away, you don't know much If I can offer an analogy. I once had the pleasure of hearing Jim Lovell (The astronaut played by Tom Hanks in Apollo 13) give a speech. He said that for the first 99% of the trip to the moon, they simply aimed ahead of their target, never directly at the moon. In this manner, I suggest that with so many variables, accuracy is impossible, it's a moving target. Start young, take the 10% MrC offered, and keep saving. Every few years, stop and see if you are on target, if not, bump the number a bit. Better to turn 50 and find that after a good decade you've reached your number and can drop your savings to a minimum, perhaps just to capture a 401(k) match, than to turn 50 and realize you've undersaved and need to bump to an unsustainable level. Imagine planning ahead in 1999. You've seen 2 great decades of returns, and even realizing that 18%/yr couldn't continue, you plan for a below average 7%, this would double your 1999 balance in 10 years. Instead you saw zero return. For a decade. In sum, when each variable has an accuracy of +/-50% you are not going to combine them all and get a number with even 10% accuracy (as if MrC were wrong, but the pro would tell you 11% is right for you?). This is as absurd as packaging up a bunch of C rated debt, and thinking that enough of this paper would yield a final product that was AAA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "270b471564ffb96df5cd684b477d5a90",
"text": "Its been years since I lived there, but I found Seattle to be pretty expensive. Housing costs seem out of line with expected salaries. Coming from Puerto Rico you might be shocked how expensive it is to live there, and also how infrequently you see the sun. Your question is highly subjective. One person would need 100K to cover those things you are talking about, while others would need less then 30K. Also where you live in the Seattle area makes a difference. Will you be in Redmond or Bothell? Housing costs vary considerably. One nice thing about that part of the country is can be very inexpensive to vacation. A fishing license, a packed lunch, and a bit of gas is all that is necessary to really enjoy that part of the country. Back in the day I used to ski Steven's Pass during the week, and the lift tickets were a 1/3 of the weekend rate. Having hiking/camping gear and or a bicycle is also a good way to enjoy life. Bottom line I would make a budget, and go from there. If you intend on retiring in PR, then you would need a lot less then if you choose to remain in Seattle so even that is subjective. Perfect Example, Marysville, which is way out of town so a commute would be a problem. However, unlike many parts south of Seattle, it is safe and nice. ~200K for a 1200 sq ft home. Holy cow. Here in Orlando, figure about 130K for the same home with less of a commute. And you will see the sun more than 5 days per year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c141ed7cdf8cab6bfcb015570724f327",
"text": "With a 1/4 million you should be looking at staying fully invested and doing income draw down you can safely take 3 or 4 % Basing your retirement income 100% on cash investments is very risky I can remember when inflation hit 15% in the UK and it has been at similar levels in the usa around 14% in 79.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0db9ed0f698cd183a8be904e69a5bd30",
"text": "\"I think your very long list of possible assumptions makes a tacit point of your own: to state \"\"15%\"\" as a general value is bogus. I think, in most cases, the \"\"15%\"\" is merely a popular meme. To give any fixed number or percentage of income saved is insufficient without expanding things in the way you show. Therefore, a formula, in which at least a handful of variables can be plugged into it, seems like the right approach. (And this is what is being discussed here with the Monte Carlo method).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4a9aa1cc6447e913c6f9cfbce259014",
"text": "\"The most important thing is not to tell yourself \"\"I'll save more later in my career when I have more disposable income,\"\" because of two factors. 1) You will get raises over your career, but unless you make it big, it will never really feel like you have extra money. You may double or triple your salary over a career, but it usually happens in small increments which your lifestyle tends to adjust upwards to meet even though it doesn't feel like it. 2) Later in your career you may have more money to save, but now the commodity you have is time. Your total savings at retirement are going to be influenced in a massive way by both of these factors. A good strategy is save SOMETHING early in your career even if it feels like an insignificant amount. Then save larger amounts later in your career when you are earning more, but have less time for your investments to grow and less tolerance for high risk/high growth investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0acf326fbdfa250e70c646ec968b6f6",
"text": "I think rather than take a percentage out, I focus on getting a total amount I consider appropriate for my emergency fund. Then as for retirement, I do at least what my employer matches, up to the contribution limit. For example my personal retirement plan in the US has an annual max contribution of $5000. Once I have my 6 to 12 month emergency fund (in a pretty liquid form) and a fully funded retirement, I want to concentrate on building wealth via investments or increasing the quality of my life by spending. Summary answer is: no percentage for emergency, just get to a total amount you feel comfortable. Then whatever percentage will allow you to make the most of employer matching and make your retirement fully funded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac36ee0d725e5358b52e85148a82764a",
"text": "Answering this question is a great way to gauge how you're doing towards saving for retirement now. But of course what matters more than this snapshot in time is how much you contribute down the line. It may be wise to try to estimate how much you will want saved by the time you retire. Then try to calculate how much you would need to save in order to hit that mark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce7bc2c2cd732782fe38fbe089359593",
"text": "The exact percentages depend on many things, not just location. For example, everyone needs food. If you have a low income, the percentage of your income spent on food would be much higher than for someone that has a high income. Any budgeting guidelines that you find are just a starting point. You need to look at your own income and expenses and come up with your own spending plan. Start by listing all of the necessities that you have to spend on. For example, your basic necessities might be: Fund those categories, and any other fixed expenses that you have. Whatever you have left is available for other things, such as: and anything else that you can think of to spend money on. If you can save money on some of the necessities above, it will free up money on the discretionary categories below. Because your income and priorities are different than everyone else, your budget will be different than everyone else, too. If you are new to budgeting, you might find that the right budgeting software can make the task much easier. YNAB, EveryDollar, or Mvelopes are three popular choices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8af6818d444883888868b92ad4c7dc6",
"text": "I just want to point out a couple of things, and I do not have enough reputation to comment. Saving 50% is totally possible. I know people saving 65%. For more see here EDIT: Let me repeat that 4% it the maximum you can assume if you want to be sure to have at least that return in the long term. It's not the average, it's the minimum, the value you can expect and plan with. Just to reinforce the claim, I can cite Irrational Exuberance of Robert Schiller, who explicitly says, on page 135 of the 2015 edition, that from January 1966 to January 1992 the real annual return was just 4.1%. Sure, this does not matter so much if you are investing all the way through, but it's still a 26 year period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f14f80b7b309f04558d5bd967798206",
"text": "Take a certain percentage of your income (say, 10%, but more is better if you can) and put it aside with every paycheck. Some employers will even allow you to direct deposit your paycheck into two different accounts and you can specify a certain amount or percentage for the second account. Your savings will go directly into a separate account as if you never had it in the first place. Consider your savings untouchable as spending money. Watch it grow. There's no other secret, you just have to do it!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a37214ce39c0d60775a5bf216304cb9",
"text": "A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41bf5cbee4234ed07d164d694903290a",
"text": "\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \"\"real\"\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3787ce52da94e544036b6fada6b1e3a2",
"text": "\"I argued for a 15% rule of thumb here: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? Though if you'll let me, I'd refine the argument to: use a rule of thumb to set your minimum savings, then use Monte Carlo to stress-test and look at any special circumstances, and make a case to save more. You're right that the rule of thumb bakes in tons of assumptions (great list btw). A typical 15%-works scenario could include: If any of those big assumptions don't apply to you (or you don't want to rely on them) you'd have to re-evaluate. It sounds like you're assuming 4-5% investment returns? As you say that's probably the big difference, 4-5% is lower than most would assume. 6-7% (real return) is maybe a middle-of-the-road assumption and 8% is maybe an unrealistic one. Many of the assumptions you list (such as married/kids, cost of living, spouse's income, paying for college) can maybe be bundled up into one assumption (percentage of income you will spend). Set a percentage budget and as you go along, stay within your means by sacrificing as required. Also smooth out income across layoffs and things by having an emergency fund. By staying on-budget as you go you can remove some of the unpredictability. The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a \"\"more accurate\"\" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that \"\"saving enough\"\" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify \"\"not a binary thing\"\": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between \"\"plausible plan\"\" and \"\"denial.\"\" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question \"\"is it reasonable to retire right now?\"\" or \"\"could I retire in 5 years?\"\" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb. Analysis paralysis (saving nothing or near-nothing) is the real danger early in one's career. Any plausible percentage is fine as long as you save. As your life unfolds and you see what happens, you can refine and correct, adjusting your savings rate, moving your retirement age around, spending a little less or more. The important thing earlier in life is to just get in the right ballpark.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f95f6b5332818507075b52f5b406e60d",
"text": "\"I'd encourage you to use rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope. Here are some ideas that could be useful: The problem with any kind of detailed calculations is the number of unknowns: There are some really complex calculators out there, for example see ESPlanner (http://www.esplanner.com/) (caution: horrible user interface, but seemed to work), that will include all kinds of factors and run monte carlo and the whole thing. But in my opinion, it's just as good or better to say save at least 15% of income until you have 25x what you spend, or some other such rule of thumb. Here's my little blog post on savings and investing fwiw: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Another note, there's sort of an \"\"ideology of how to live\"\" embedded in any retirement recommendation, and you might want to take the time to reflect on that and consciously choose. A book on this topic is Your Money or Your Life by Robin & Dominguez, http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766 which is a sort of radical \"\"you should save everything possible to achieve financial independence as early as possible\"\" argument. I didn't go for their plan, but I think it's thought-provoking. A newer book that may be more appealing is called The Number and it's about your question exactly. It's more designed to get you thinking, while Your Money or Your Life has a particular answer in mind. Both have some math and some rules of thumb, though they aren't focused on that. A kind of general takeaway from these books might be: first think about your expenses. What are you trying to accomplish in life, how would you like to spend your time? And then ask how much money you absolutely need to accomplish that, and focus on accomplishing your goals, spending your time (as much as you can) on what you'd like to spend it on. I'm contrasting this with a generic recommendation to save enough to spend 80% of your income in retirement, which embeds this idea that you should spend as much as possible every year, before and after you retire. Lots of people do like that idea, but it's not a law of the universe or something, it's just one popular approach.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af54e9f869b44c4f65083b7c30d1f2d",
"text": "Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d12a01b8f903137662fada452e2939e5",
"text": "\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90337c3fa4b8e6ade18c781f79fabe5f",
"text": "On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eed8f66165aabbacb8a8890718a5f751
|
What happens to my savings if my country defaults or restructures its debt?
|
[
{
"docid": "530ba3f0e8050cdfe11a9e3dfe48a39f",
"text": "In theory, anything can happen, and the world could end tomorrow. However, with a reasonably sane financial plan you should be able to ride this out. If the government cannot or won't immediately pay its debt in full, the most immediate consequence is that people are going to be unwilling to lend any more money in future, except at very high rates to reflect the high risk of future default. Presumably the government has got into this state by running a deficit (spending more than they collect in tax) and that is going to have to come to an abrupt end. That means: higher taxes, public service retrenchments and restrictions of service, perhaps cuts to social benefits, etc. Countries that get into this state typically also have banks that have lent too much money to risky customers. So you should also expect to see some banks get into trouble, which may mean customers who have money on deposit will have trouble getting it back. In many cases governments will guarantee deposits, but perhaps only up to a particular ceiling like $100k. It would be very possible to lose everything if you have speculative investments geared by substantial loans. If you have zero or moderate debt, your net wealth may decrease substantially (50%?) but there should be little prospect of it going to zero. It is possible governments will simply confiscate your property, but I think in a first-world EU country this is fairly unlikely to happen to bank accounts, houses, shares, etc. Typically, a default has led to a fall in the value of the country's currency. In the eurozone that is more complex because the same currency is used by countries that are doing fairly well, and because there is also turbulence in other major currency regions (JPY, USD and GBP). In some ways this makes the adjustment harder, because debts can't be inflated down. All of this obviously causes a lot of economic turbulence so you can expect house prices to fall, share prices to gyrate, unemployment to rise. If you can afford it and come stomach the risk, it may turn out to be a good time to buy assets for the long term. If you're reasonably young the largest impact on you won't be losing your current savings, but rather the impact on your future job prospects from this adjustment period. You never know, but I don't think the Weimar Republic wheelbarrows-of-banknotes situation is likely to recur; people are at least a bit smarter now and there is an inflation-targeting independent central bank. I think gold can have some room in a portfolio, but now is not the time to make a sudden drastic move into it. Most middle class people cannot afford to have enough gold to support them for the rest of their life, though they may have enough for a rainy day or to act as a balancing component. So what I would do to cope with this is: be well diversified, be sufficiently conservatively positioned that I would sleep at night, and beyond that just ride it out and try not to worry too much.",
"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": "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": "f223389ac294be1c02dff830429e81dd",
"text": "First question: Any, probably all, of the above. Second question: The risk is that the currency will become worth less, or even worthless. Most will resort to the printing press (inflation) which will tank the currency's purchasing power. A different currency will have the same problem, but possibly less so than yours. Real estate is a good deal. So are eggs, if you were to ask a Weimar Germany farmer. People will always need food and shelter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8738f4e98abfc2075b8eaac884495047",
"text": "\"This question is different because you are asking for actual advice vs. a more academic, \"\"what if\"\" scenario. The answer that I'll give will be different, and similar to another recent question on a similar vein. Basically, if you're living in a European country that's effectively in default and in need of a bailout, the range of things that can happen is difficult to predict... the fate of countries like Ireland and Greece, whatever the scenario, will be economic and social upheaval. But, this isn't the end of the world either... it's happened before and will happen again. As an individual, you need to start investing defensively in a manner appropriate for your level of wealth. Things to think about: I'd suggest reading \"\"A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a493da20b1cbd404298095c658da479",
"text": "My 0,02€ - I probably live in the same country as you. Stop worrying. The Euro zone has a 100.000€ guaranty deposit. So if any bank should fail, that's the amount you'll receive back. This applies to all bank accounts and deposits. Not to any investments. You should not have more than 100.000€ in any bank. So, lucky you, if you have more than that money, divide between a number of banks. As for the Euro, there might be an inflation, but at this moment the USA and China are in a currency battle that 'benefits' the Euro. Meaning you should not invest in dollars or yuan at this time. Look for undervalued currency to invest in as they should rise against the Euro.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eefe526e99c585f680907b8039439560",
"text": "Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "610647bae4d6310e27ebdbbc43b28acb",
"text": "I am going to add in an opinion here from the Wall Street Journal that I read this morning in What's at Stake in the Greek Vote, in light of current events and elections in Greece. The article claims that if the election results make it sound like a break from the Euro is imminent then ... we will see a full-fledged bank run. Greek banks would collapse ... The market exchange-rate would likely be two or three drachmas to the euro, which would double or triple the Greek price of imported goods within a few days. Prices of assets, including real-estate assets, would crumble. Those who moved their deposits abroad would be able to buy these assets cheaply, leading to a significant, regressive redistribution of Greek wealth. In short, you'd lose two-thirds of your savings unless you were storing them somewhere safe from the conversion. The article also predicts difficulty importing goods (other nations will demand to be paid in euro, not drachma) leading to disruption of trade and various supply shortages. I will note that the predictions here seem to be in opposition to some other advice here which suggests that real estate will be an effective hedge.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "719104e49dea86adee1d721d1f412b5e",
"text": "Remove your money. If you do not need this money for some time, you can convert it to Gold, and now is a good time to buy. Gold is not expected to decrease much in price as we're already at the bottom of the employment cycle and the Depression is already begun and will take about two years to grip the world.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cfff1fa9526bfd598d38b9f15ba3b586",
"text": "Andrew Lilico has a likely scenario for when Greece defaults on its sovereign debt: What happens when Greece defaults. Here are a few things: Every bank in Greece will instantly go insolvent. The Greek government will nationalise every bank in Greece. The Greek government will forbid withdrawals from Greek banks. To prevent Greek depositors from rioting on the streets, Argentina-2002-style (when the Argentinian president had to flee by helicopter from the roof of the presidential palace to evade a mob of such depositors), the Greek government will declare a curfew, perhaps even general martial law. Greece will redenominate all its debts into “New Drachmas” or whatever it calls the new currency (this is a classic ploy of countries defaulting) The New Drachma will devalue by some 30-70 per cent (probably around 50 per cent, though perhaps more), effectively defaulting 0n 50 per cent or more of all Greek euro-denominated debts. As Megan McArdle says, there's more at the link, all depressing. I think you're focusing too much on Greece leaving the euro and not enough on why Greece would leave the euro. Greece would leave the euro precisely so that it could pay back its debt in a new currency worth less than valuable euros. The new currency will devalue, since that's the point of leaving. Along the way the government forces its citizens to take the new currency. The money they have in Greek banks will be converted to the new currency: The citizens don't have a choice to keep their euros.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5e20b5bf238f0c1b1c3ce61dd1bc609",
"text": "IMHO: The best scenario where Greece does not leave the euro: In this scenario there is probably no risk, because either the ECB will print more money, or other countries will help Greece in some way. The average scenario where Greece leaves the euro: All Bank accounts will be frozen and slowly turned into NEW DRACHMA, and your poor money after the conversion will be worth 50K euro at best (but probably much less). There is also the worst scenario: The bank defaults too, and you will lose everything. Italy has a fund to protect deposits up to 100K euro (I don't know if you have something similar in Greece). However, a similar fund in Greece would be guaranteed by Greek banks and the Greek government, so you might not get much back regardless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dea8171566d9141f05c3d4f716818442",
"text": "Oh, you mean converting your money to that of a country whose public debt is [103% of GDP, instead of the 108% of your own?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt) That seems hardly an advancement, even more so considering that the public debt of the Eurozone as a whole is 82.5% of GDP. Greece is just 2% of the European economy, its default would not mean the collapse of the Euro.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3183eaf434c9e5a766a8bacab88329e0",
"text": "In principle, a default will have no effect on your bank account. But if the US's credit rating is downgraded, the knock-on effects might cause some more bank failures, and if the debt ceiling is still in place then the FDIC insurance might not be able to pay out immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85cc61ce4cae47e915371baf9aea5ef4",
"text": "\"But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? Ultimately, a US state could go into default. However, I doubt that such a scenario would be allowed to transpire. This seems to happen to California with some regularity. That is, risking default. What would happen is not quite well known: \"\"There is no provision for a state to go bankrupt,\"\" Kyser said. \"\"I don't think anyone really knows what will happen or even if the state will go into receivership if it does default. I can tell you this, officials are looking at all the (current) laws.\"\" (source) I believe that the answer to your question is that it could happen, but likely would not be allowed to occur. The nature of the EU and US are quite different. The individual states forming the US are not separate nations. For better or for worse, the US is a stronger federation than the EU. (Something that is lamented at times when the Feds mess with the purview of the locals.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f3147f6adedde8e9a6bfd15489cca35",
"text": "And then there is the issue of people who actually don't intend to reduce the size of their loan. They only want to pay the interest, so their debt with the bank remains constant. If you are upside down, it means you will not have the financial means to remove the debt. If, for some reason, you are no longer able to pay the bank, you might lose the house. After that you will have no house, but you still have a debt with the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "ea86fd7b4d8b9b47a0d883a41209fb7c",
"text": "Yes, if all my savings were in Euro, I would absolutely be converting everything to US dollars, and possibly some gold. You probably don't want to sit around with lots of Euros while watching the shit hit fan. Talk to your bank, possibly they can open a US dollar bank account in your own country for you. Definitely any bank that has an international presence, like HSBC, should be able to do this for you. And if not US dollars, British Pounds would also be another option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "353a7974e5e0ce0e013320123f9fc2d7",
"text": "I mean the current account has four parts - goods trade, services trade, “primary” income (this used to just be investment income) and “secondary” incomes (this used to be just remittance and cash flows, Mexico has a lot of these). By definition, if you have a trade deficit but current account surplus it comes from primary/secondary income. I’m not sure if it’s crisis mode - a true BoP shock is much more likely to come from having a lot of foreigners owning portfolio assets based on your country (ie Germans owning Spanish bonds sell the bonds, so Spain now has less money for imports).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "689f1348e18c44df10a95af25b6de4c4",
"text": "Lol TL:DR. your first point is completely wrong so I stopped at the wall of text. Get over it buddy, you lost the argument. No country simultaniously purchased and sold its own debt, like we have this past several years in the US. So, shut the fuck up already. loser.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d94ad5be7d204f89427965766afdaa0d",
"text": "Its highly unlikely to 'collapse', perhaps there will be managed defaults, yes, but there is no way they will let it collapse as a global depression would follow. If the euro collapses it will also bring down most of the global economy including the likes of China and the US (not to mention the Germans) and they are not going to let that happen. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cf8ce18-2042-11e1-9878-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1y0lc0hy1 P.s. I am surprised we have not seen more suggestions of buying guns, land and building a commune.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d67d3a9f9940d33d75c8fbfa7f854d74",
"text": "The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c179753dbea5c49f43dee22bc621eb21",
"text": "Government default doesn't mean that all US money is immediately worthless. First, the bondholders will get stiffed. Following that, interest rates will shoot up (because the US is a bad credit risk at this point) and the government will monetize its ongoing expenses -- i.e., fire up the printing presses. If you're concerned about not having access to your money, start pulling out a little extra when you get cash at an ATM. Build it up over time until you have enough currency to weather through whatever emergency you envision with your bank account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09dd4f368fc21a4a56f73613cfb5cc4e",
"text": "Two possible reasons: You can tell which scenario it is based on the credit history they provide you. If you look at the history and they show you your scores for each month, even though you didn't initiate it, then they are auto checking it each month. If the historical dates are only on the dates you clicked on the button, they are only checking when you manually click on it. As for the why they provide it, a few years back it was a desirable feature. Now they all do it just to keep pace with everyone else. Note that most banks only provide a single scoring model from one bureau (but different banks use different bureaus).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b0c964ba22d93e8451148742228fe18",
"text": "Resident Alien is liable for the same taxes as a citizen. Citizenship has nothing to do with taxes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b0e8222be1f5fd5473816d2c14c25204
|
Ensuring payment from client
|
[
{
"docid": "234c54943d0d639b3171953cad2c383d",
"text": "Use some form of escrow agent: Some freelancer sites provide payment escrow services (e.g. E-Lance). In this system the client puts money in escrow for the project in advance and then when they accept the project it forwards the payment to the provider. Progress Payments Arrange a progress payment approach with the client where they pay at certain milestones rather than a single payment at the end of the project. Ideally you would have them pre-pay for each milestone before you start work on it. However, you could ask for payment after each milestone, which might be easier to sell to your client. It does leave some risk, but minimizes that risk somewhat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7c498825c09e23317c7c93211e5533e",
"text": "\"You should absolutely have a contract between you and your client stipulating the quid-pro-quos of the arrangement. They get the product, you get the money. First off, this contract should specify what you must do, and what they must do, for the contract to be \"\"satisfied\"\". This isn't necessarily just product for money; your client may be under deadlines to approve the product in various stages of work in process. Depending on the product, the client may be required to provide starting materials (like existing logos/slogans for advertising/marketing graphics), information on or access to computer systems (for software or infrastructure consulting, or accounting auditing), etc. Second, if you provide a tangible product like graphics or software, the contract should clearly state that \"\"intellectual property transfers on satisfaction of contract\"\"; they don't own what you have made until they have accepted it and paid you accordingly. If they try to stiff you by taking what you made them and using it before you've been paid, you can take them to the cleaner's for copyright violations. Third, you should structure a payment schedule; don't do too much for free. You can get the money in thirds, for instance; a third up front, a third at some defined halfway point and a third on final delivery and acceptance. Lastly, you should stipulate that the client is responsible for all expenses incurred by you as a result of their failure to pay as stipulated, up to and including attorney's fees. Definitely have a lawyer draft these agreements; contract law is a many-layered area of law with hundreds of years of case law and slightly different nuances in every state. A competent lawyer will know things that can and can't be stipulated in a contract, and if you try to do it alone you'll wish you hadn't when the contract's tossed out by a judge because of some technicality. If they refuse to pay, get the lawyer on the phone and file suit. A well-written contract drafted by a competent lawyer, which you have lived up to on your end, will give your client no loopholes to slip through. As far as recovering damages, it shouldn't matter whether he's in the U.S. or not; if he does business in the U.S. then he very probably has money in banks that have to listen to U.S. courts (or at least court orders).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f3c332fbce2b61f308b02c595062977e",
"text": "Ok so this is the best information I could get! It is a guarantee from a financial institution that payment will be made for items or services once certain requirements are met. Let me know if this helps! I'll try to get more info in the meantime.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02dc5cfe87845930e123d0aeac9c47da",
"text": "Source: Business owner for 13 years. Unfortunately you may be hard-pressed to get that money back. You can try sending him to collections, but at that point it often starts to cost you more than what he owes you, in my experience. In the worst instance I lost $2100 on a single invoice that I never received a dime for. Nearly 20 hours of my time wasted for nothing! A bit of unsolicited advice: I've found that when working on a service-basis, obtaining billing and payment info up front and taking a deposit makes sense. I take 1 hour's worth of deposit and bill the rest after. Not only does it verify the payment method works, but it also gives you a way to confirm the customer's ability to pay in the future. If the customer balks at this, just walk away. It's not worth the risk. As a business, your goal is to make money in exchange for goods or services. If your customers don't understand that and aren't willing to front a bit of money to secure your services, you'll likely going to lose time and money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56f82db3f78d5f5a19e418772f91d4da",
"text": "Many banks offer online payment. He can add a payee and just type your name and address in. The bank will mail the check out if they cannot deliver payment electronically. Edit: Recently I came across this (Citibank Global Transfer), you and your friend should see if your bank offers a similar service. Citibank requires both of you to have an account with them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98e0c7c1611cb33a283a45e94ba2c289",
"text": "\"The thing to look at is PayPal's \"\"PayPal.me\"\" service, which is a pretty neat little item. When you sign up for a PayPal.me account (totally free), you create a unique username. So for example, my PayPal.me account name is DanCAnderson. I can give someone the following web link to send me $500: http://paypal.me/DanCAnderson/500 If you click the link above, you'll see what the user sees (my company name is Salt River Networks, Inc.). I gave a live link so you can see the working example of it (no need for anyone to send money! chuckle). I can change the amount by simply changing the value at the end of the URL. When they go to that link, they see a landing page with your name on it and the amount to send to you, then they go through the normal process of paying via PayPal. It's a pretty neat service, and I've used to it bill a few clients for work I've done by emailing that link to them rather than going through the whole PayPal procedure.\"",
"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": "fc17bf0c8d9eecdcd412998741cfc8f4",
"text": "Short answer: No. Some of those 'automatic' payments you've agreed to (presumably by signing a PAD form) are initiated in batch by the company whom you're buying from (phone company, cable company etc). So no, the bank has no indication from one day to the next what is coming through. And the request goes from say, your cable company to THEIR merchant bank to YOUR bank. Typically you have a monthly bill date which is fixed, and they should have terms established when it is due. If a payment comes back NSF they can retry once - but only for the same amount and I believe it is 14 days from the initial payment attempt. It makes it predictable, and you'd figure banks would clue in and start to predict for you when things may come out - but strictly speaking your bank doesn't know when or how much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89bf83f18f6fc3252483ecf01139e83b",
"text": "You could of course request payment in EUR or USD, maybe keep a PayPal account and just leave the funds in PayPal unless you need to withdraw the money in local currency? Either currency would be fine because the problem you are trying to overcome is the instability in the ruble. EUR and USD both accomplish that. If you can get local clients to pay in EUR or USD (again, PayPal seems like an easy way to accomplish that) you avoid the ruble, but at the risk that your services become more expensive to local clients because they have to convert a weaker currency to a stronger one. You should also solicit some international clients! You are obviously perfectly fluent in English and that's a significant advantage. And they'll be happy to pay in dollars and euros.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "552d9668245c71a85bc404876a03f57e",
"text": "Given the combination of the admitted delays and then the failure of the money to arrive with only their word they have sent it, I would be worried that the solicitor is having financial problems and has not really sent your money because they don't have it. This shouldn't be possible unless they were already acting unethically by not properly segregating client money, but that possibility does always exist. I would consult the Solicitor's Regulation Authority for advice as quickly as possible. They may not be the right people to initially deal with the problem, but they should be able to advise on the appropriate next steps and it might help them match up your problem with any other reports they have received.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "206fcc394cd42047e135996b36db0866",
"text": "\"The service processors are providing is absorbing the risk. The flow goes, roughly (and I say roughly because it's a complicated process): 1. You swipe/insert your card at Bob's House of Eatery and get charged $10 for a bucket of ramen or something. 2. The device you swipe your card in, (\"\"a terminal\"\") encodes the card number, amount, and some other transaction details and contacts a \"\"Payment Gateway\"\". 3. The gateway decodes the blob of data, and is responsible for determining the issuing financial institution (\"\"Chase\"\", \"\"US Bank\"\", etc.). 4. The gateway contacts the above and asks, \"\"Can card # 555.. charge $10?\"\" 5. The gateway also sends this answer to the processor. 5. The processor _immediately_ proxies that yes/no back to the merchant's terminal. 6. The processor, having a transaction ID, and a yes/no, sends the response to the merchant's systems so your receipt can be printed or order processed, and so on. 7. Meanwhile, the processor has a transaction ID and is busy figuring out things like interchange fees. The amount depends on a whole host of things, and almost everyone involved in the process wants their cut -- the bank, the gateway, the processor, and it all depends on the type of card, customer, rewards, and so on. 8. At the end of the day, week, whatever, the processor collects money from the issuing financial institution and is responsible for giving the right amount -- less fees -- to the merchant. The processor here also absorbs the risk and costs for things like chargebacks, as almost everyone in that chain (gateway, issuing bank) want their pound of flesh for a chargeback, and often the processor doesn't pass that full cost on to the merchant and instead does some risk analysis to determine if they think this merchant is going to be okay to do business with. That's what you're paying for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc6cd8481d4716ff1f1c8e3b63a62584",
"text": "If you are regularly taking payments of $10,000 I'm very surprised you aren't already set up to accept credit card payments. If you are going to be doing this much in the future it would be a good thing to investigate. Some other options might be:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e04a6a482c4d33b7cb0fdf8682ac7c1c",
"text": "Send a well-documented payment to the original creditor. Do it in such a way that you would have the ability to prove that you sent a payment if they reject it. Should they reject it, demonstrate that to the credit reporting bureaus.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a928a5c3aa932c66a58061c6b90a22e5",
"text": "On a summary level, there are three conceptual ways of clearing money electronically. Immediate clearing, where banks (often, but not necessarily) with support of the supervisory entities, send immediate drawing rights against their own cash reserves, and dedicate this right to the account of the receiving customer. This is rather expensive, as it limits the banks ability to use their cash reserves for their own banking operations (crediting etc). This is often the only way to wire significant (in comparison to the bank size) amounts of money. Internal clearing, where the money actually never leaves the bank - it's just moved between accounts of two different customers of the same bank. It's usually free, as the bank is still free to use your money to do it's banking, and it's usually immediate since nothing actually needs to happen besides a change in the banks entries. Batch clearing, where banks submit outstanding requests against each other, and calculate the net settlement. Basically, when you from bank A wire money to me in bank B, there is a high chance that a similar amount of money is wired between two other users it the opposite direction. After a bit of accounting the net imbalance is computed (and often drawn via immediate clearing) but the bulk of the money actually never leaves any of the banks, it just is reassigned between each banks customers as per agreed books. There are also additional ways where companies decide to open accounts in each of the banks and provide some sort of immediate clearing backed by the operators cash reserves rather than the banks.. and so on.. How does it happen in Indonesia? I have no idea, but I think a good overview of how it happens around the world is a publication by a partner entity of ours; http://pymntsreportstore.com/products/global-wire-transfer-choices If you are really curious, I'd research under what legal form does Paypal Indonesia operate (it should be somewhere in the archives) and figure out what other wiring options are available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7ef398e41b7d6d15756c78d9ae1a431",
"text": "Generally there's no ultimate protection against charge backs. Some methods are easier to charge back and some harder, and there's always the resort of going to courts. The hardest to contest is, of course, a cash payment or wire transfer. You need to remember that imposing unnecessary/unreasonable difficulties on your customers will drive business away. I can buy diamonds in the nearest mall with my credit card - why would I buy from you if you want cash, BTC, or any other shady way to pay? I'm pretty sure that whatever that is you're selling, anyone can buy elsewhere as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa91763d3069df0a5cadff629dfd558f",
"text": "\"The second part of your question is the easiest to answer, how much manual work is involved in settlement processes? Payment systems which handle low value (i.e. high volume) transactions work on the basis of net settlement. Each of the individual payments are netted across all of the participant banks, so that only one \"\"real\"\" payment is made by each bank. Some days banks will receive money, others they will pay money. This is arbitrary and depends on whether their outbound payments exceed their inbound payments for that day. The payment system will notify each Bank how much it owes/will receive for the day. The money is then transferred between all of the banks simultaneously by the payment system to remove the risk that some pay and others don't. If you're going to make or receive a very large payment, you're going to want to make certain that its correct. This means that if there's a discrepancy, you need operations people available to find out why its wrong. When dealing with this many payments, answering that question can be hard. Did we miss a payment? Is there a duplicate? Etc. The vast majority of payments will process without any human involvement, but to make the process work, you always need human brains there to fix problems that occur. This brings me to your first question. On every day that settlement happens, a bank will receive (or pay) a very large sum of money. As a settlement bank you must settle that money - the guarantee that every bank will pay is one of the main reasons these systems exist. For settlement to happen, every bank has to agree to participate, and be ready to verify the data on their side and deliver the funds from their account. So there is no particular reason that this doesn't happen on weekends and holidays other than history. But for any payment system to change, it would require the support of (at least) a majority of participants to pay staff to manage the settlement process on weekends. This would increase costs for banks, but the benefits would only really be for you and me (if at all). That means it's unlikely to happen unless a government forces the issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97a20b758d5b697cdf2e9de993eaf4b9",
"text": "\"There are Cyber Security and Reporting Standards which Financial Service Provider (Banks and Financial services where customers deposit and/or transact fiat currency) You can find a comprehensive list on Wikipedia under Cyber security standards Depending on the geographic location there might be local Govt requirements such as reporting issues, data security etc. Concerning point 1. We have to differ between a fraudulent customer and an attacker on the banks infrastructure. Fraudulent customers / customers that have been compromised by third parties are identified with but not limited to credit scores and merchant databases or data from firms specialized in \"\"Fraud Prevention\"\". Attackers (Criminals that intend to steal, manipulate or spy on data) are identified/prevented/recorded by but not limited to IDS solutions and attacker databases. For firms that get compensation by insurances the most important thing is the compilant with law and have records of everything, they rather focus on recording data to backtrack attackers than preventing attacks. Concerning point 2. For you as customer the local law and deposit insurance are the most important things. Banks are insured and usually compensate customers on money theft. The authentication and PIN / TAN methods are most crucial but standard - these authentication methods consist of one password and one offline part such as a TAN from a paperletter or a RSA generator or card reader. WRAPUP: Financial institutions have to comply with local law and meet international standards. Banks use highly advanced Intrusion detection and fraud prevention which logically must be based on databases. For the average joe customer there is seldom high risk to lose deposits even if the attackers gains full access to the bank account but this depends a lot on the country you reside in. Concerning targeted attacks:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b5ec1be05c76883a2db05f7657dff604
|
Explanations on credit cards in Canada
|
[
{
"docid": "3cc6c9116769ff348070c66a1ed49129",
"text": "\"A credit card is a way to borrow money. That's all. Sometimes the loans are very small - $5 - and sometimes they are larger. You can have a credit card with a company (bank or whatever) that you have no other relationship with. They're not a property of a bank account, they are their own thing. The card you describe sounds exactly like a debit card here, and you can treat your Canadian debit card like your French credit card - you pay for things directly from your bank account, assuming the money is in there. In Canada, many small stores take debit but not credit, so do be sure to get a debit card and not only a credit card. Now as to your specific concerns. You aren't going to \"\"forget to make a wire.\"\" You're going to get a bill - perhaps a paper one, perhaps an email - and it will say \"\"here is everything you charged on your credit card this month\"\" along with a date, which will be perhaps 21 days from the statement date, not the date you used the card. Pay the entire balance (not just the minimum payment) by that date and you'll pay no interest. The bill date will be a specific date each month (eg the 23rd) so you can set yourself a reminder to check and pay your bill once a month. Building a credit history has value if you want to borrow a larger amount of money to buy a car or a house, or to start a business. Unlike the US, it doesn't really have an impact on things like getting a job. If you use your card for groceries, you use it enough, no worries. In 5 years it is nice to look back and see \"\"never paid late; mostly paid the entire amount each month; never went over limit; never went into collections\"\" and so on. In my experience you can tell they like you because they keep raising your limit without you asking them to. If you want to buy a $2500 item and your credit limit is $1500 you could prepay $1000 onto the credit card and then use it. Or you could tell the vendor you'd rather use your debit card. Or you could pay $1500 on the credit card and then rest with your debit card. Lots of options. In my experience once you get up to that kind of money they'd rather not use a credit card because of the merchant fees they pay.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4da24f321fb782c3eadaf9e189c1c90",
"text": "Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8beada6940fcd19d31b2e64fb168897f",
"text": "If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. I have my back account (i.e. chequing account) and VISA account at/from the same bank (which, in my case, is the Royal Bank of Canada). I asked my bank to set up an automatic transfer, so that they automatically pay off my whole VISA balance every month, on time, by taking the money from my bank account. In that way I am never late paying the VISA so I never pay interest charges. IOW I use the VISA like a debit card; the difference is that it's accepted at some places where a debit card isn't (e.g. online, and for car rentals), and that the money is deducted from my bank account at the end of the month instead of immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c04f6dc0d7acbc634d4a02bf5166519",
"text": "\"I think it's worth pointing out explicitly that the biggest difference between a credit card (US/Canada) and a debit card (like your French carte de crédit) is that with a credit card, it's entirely possible to not pay the bill or to pay only the \"\"minimum payment\"\" when asked. This results in you owing significantly more money due to interest, which can snowball into higher and higher levels of debt, and end up getting rapidly out of control. This is the reason why you should ALWAYS pay off the ENTIRE balance every month, as attested to in the other answers; it's not uncommon to find people in the US with thousands of dollars of debt they can't pay off from misuse of credit cards.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "efc61f4ca2cbf4747a962aacb18f1111",
"text": "There are two separate cases here that people are not separating. Any card will allow you to pay an amount not exceeding the actually posted charges. Some cards will allow you to pay more than this, some will not. My parents have deliberately overpaid as a means of having a higher credit limit, I've been denied (different card) when trying to do the same thing and the website wouldn't even allow me to pay temporary charges that hadn't yet become real. (A human operator would allow paying those, though.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07387f98d8f5d6003a51cc409fc5a910",
"text": "You have to check your contract to be sure what is it you're paying for. Typically, you get some of the following features which can be unavailable to you in banks which don't charge a monthly fee: Arguably, these expenses could be paid by the interest rates your money earn to the bank. Notice how banks which don't charge a fee usually require you to have a minimum amount of cash in your account or a minimum monthly cash flow. When you pay for your bank's services in cash, there's no such restrictions. I'm not sure if typical banks in the UK would take away your credit card if you lose your job and don't qualify for that kind of card any more, but I do know banks who would. The choice is yours, and while it's indeed sad that you don't have this kind of choice in Canada, it's also not like you're paying solely for the privilege of letting them invest your money behind your back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14db4aaccba207332c28e3d8235ba523",
"text": "From a Canadian point of view, I think we are generally very similar to how you describe Austria. The only thing I use cash for, is to pay for my coffee at a local micro-roaster who only accepts cash. Cheques, I only use to pay friends. Everything else is debit or credit card. Very few businesses around here will even accept cheques anymore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fee4c2ada624f9f9dfd3cf43e073b65",
"text": "There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "689b2850dd96b39d5d22d06a510114d6",
"text": "This is quite possibly a tactic to attract new clients.. ICICI is one of the banks with a small presence in Canada. There are also banks like Tangerine and PC Financial that are aggressively trying to get new clients to switch over from the big 5 banks. At the time of writing, for a limited time, PC Financial is paying 2.5% interest on savings accounts versus 1.4% for a 1 year GIC.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1219fb850544eb95e1b9182489c5e9a",
"text": "One possibility is to ask RBC to lend you some money (or more specifically, to lend you some more money): an overdraft, a personal loan, or whatever. To discuss this you should to talk to your personal banker (not a teller), probably by appointment: to explain why you want it, and how and when you expect repay it. You might (I don't know) say that you want the loan (or some of the loan) to pay off the Visa, and/or for the travel. If you've only just arrived in Canada, however, then I don't see why they should want to lend it to you (i.e. why they should think you're a good credit risk). Is there anyone else (e.g. an immigration sponsor or parent or employer) who might co-sign (a.k.a. guarantee) the loan? I have never had this issue before with any other credit cards but I got an RBC Visa in Canada In some countries (not Canada) a Visa behaves more like a debit card, i.e. you can only spend money you have in the account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3b135c214fc5ac414175d3cc25f3cde",
"text": "Corporations are removed from the options markets. They can neither permit nor forbid others from trading them, local laws notwithstanding. No national options market is as prolific as the US's. In fact, most countries don't even have options trading. Some won't even allow options but rather option-like derivatives. Finance in Canada is much more tightly regulated than the US. This primer on Canadian option eligibility shows how much. While US eligibility is also stringent, the quotas are far less restrictive, so a highly liquid small company can also be included where it would be excluded in Canada for failing the top 25% rule.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3676ef92f760af7d37a1107c411add97",
"text": "\"I think this stuff was more valid when grace periods were longer. For example, back in the 90's, I had an MBNA card with a 35 day grace period. Many business travellers used Diner's Club charge cards because they featured a 60 day grace period. There are valid uses for this: As JoeTaxpayer stated, if you are benefiting from \"\"tricks\"\" like this, you probably have other problems that you probably ought to deal with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c84f0f572bfc3e7a3e4c9442340d5088",
"text": "Given that the laws on consumer liability for unauthorized transactions mean no cost in most cases, the CVV is there to protect the merchant. Typically a merchant will receive a lower cost from their bank to process the transaction with the CVV code versus without. As far as the Netflix case goes, (or any other recurring billing for that matter) they wouldn't care as much about it because Visa/MC/Amex regulations prohibit storage of the CVV. So if they collect it then it's only used for the first transaction and renewals just use the rest of the card info (name, expiration date, address). Does the presence of CVV indicate the merchant has better security? Maybe, maybe not. It probably means they care about their costs and want to pay the bank as little as possible to process the transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccb53ec70fd1c7e3b4addbd3a77698da",
"text": "\"There are two reasons you would get a higher yield for savings accounts: either because it is not guaranteed by a national deposit insurance fund (CDIC I presume in Canada), or you have to hold it for a longer term. Money Market Accounts are insured in the U.S. and are also very liquid since you can debit from it any time. Because of this, they offer much lower rates of interest than comparable products. If you look at the savings products such as the 1.50% momentum savings account offered by ScotiaBank, you actually have to hold a $5000 balance and not make any debit from it for 90 days in order to get the extra 0.75% that would get you to 1.50%. Essentially this is roughly equivalent to offering you a 1.50% GIC with a 0.75% withdrawal penalty fee, but simply presented in more \"\"positive\"\" terms. As for the Implicity Financial Financial 1.75% offering, it looks like it is not insured by the CDIC.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5767d1419297a9b538d367bd4a0332",
"text": "I have a visa with Scotiabank and I purposefully keep a negative balance at times. The guy at the bank said it was a great idea. I have never received a cheque, nor do I want one. The reason is that it allows me to make quick purchases without having to worry about paying back and due dates. Only with large purchases do I allow myself to do that. I still check in with my account every once in a while just to make sure everything is all right. It allows for good money management and piece of mind. I have been doing it for a couple of years and have not been penalized at all. (Wouldn't really make sense to do so though.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "443bc8c96f4ef3937951264c4c74c89a",
"text": "Lived in same situation for 8 years. I walked into a BMO - told them what I needed to do and they set me right up - no U.S. accounts necessary. My account allowed me to pay bills in USD or CDN. Doesn't get any simpler than that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "298bc6aaa358239ee51268053527c422",
"text": "I haven't read the terms here but the question may not have a good answer. That won't stop me from trying. Call the real rate (interest rate - inflation) and you'll have what is called negative real rates. It's rare for the overnight real rate to be negative. If you check the same sources for historical data you'll find it's usually higher. This is because borrowing money is usually done to gain an economic benefit, ie. make a profit. That is no longer a consideration when borrowing money short term and is IMO a serious problem. This will cause poor investment decisions like you see in housing. Notice I said overnight rate. That is the only rate set by the BoC and the longer rates are set by the market. The central bank has some influence because a longer term is just a series of shorter terms but if you looked up the rate on long Canadian real return bonds, you'd see them with a real rate around 1%. What happens when the central bank raise or lowers rates will depend on the circumstances. The rate in India is so high because they are using it to defend the rupee. If people earn more interest they have a preference to buy that currency rather than others. However these people aren't stupid, they realize it's the real rate that matters. That's why Japan can get away with very low rates and still have demand for the currency - they have, or had, deflation. When that changed, the preference for their currency changed. So if Canada hast forex driven inflation then the BoC will have to raise rates to defend the dollar for the purpose of lowering inflation from imports. Whether it works or not is another story. Note that the Canadian dollar is very dependant on the total dollar value of net oil exports. If Canada has inflation due too an accelerating economy this implies that there are profitable opportunities so businesses and individuals will be more likely to pay a positive real rate of interest. In that scenario the demand for credit money will drive the real rate of return.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9865ae895ef4040d147c654ea9ff9a0a
|
How to respond to a customer's demand for payment extension?
|
[
{
"docid": "068fdfe3d42820b093505efed1501d8e",
"text": "In the event that payment is not made by the due date on the invoice then the transaction is essentially null and void and you can sell the work to another client. For your particular situation I would strongly suggest that you implement a sales contract and agreement of original transfer of work of art for any and all future sales of your original works of art. In this contract you need to either enforce payment in full at time of signing or a deposit at signing with payment in full within (X) amount of days and upon delivery of item. In your sales contract you will want to stipulate a late fee in the event that the client does not pay the balance by the date specified, and a clause that stipulates how long after the due date that you will hold the artwork before the client forfeiting deposit and losing rights to the work. You will also want to specify an amount of time that you provide as a grace period in the event client changes their mind about the purchase, and you can make it zero grace period, making all sales final and upon signing of the agreement the client agrees to the terms and is locked into the sale. In which point if they back out they forfeit all deposits paid. I own a custom web design business and we implement a similar agreement for all works that we create for a client, requiring a 50% deposit in advance of work being started, an additional 25% at time of client accepting the design/layout and the final 25% at delivery of finished product. In the event that a client fails to meet the requirements of the contract for the second or final installment payments the client forfeits all money paid and actually owes us 70% of total quoted project price for wasting our time. We have only had to enforce these stipulations on one client in 5 years! The benefit to you for requiring a deposit if payment is not made in full is that it ensures that the client is serious about purchasing the work because they have put money in the game rather than just their word of wanting to purchase. Think of it like putting earnest money down when you make an offer to buy a house. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "532ea8a3447f66a4dbb838a28f89c272",
"text": "\"I put bills with a fixed monthly amount to my credit card, and remember to pay it every month. However, I do not let any bill with a variable amount \"\"pull\"\" access to my funds. I have to \"\"push\"\" the payment. The reason is simple: We've all heard the tale of the Electric meter that rolled past zero, and the customer got charged for $65000.00, or other similar situations. When there is pull access to my money, then I have to work to get my money back. When there is push access, I can (in the electric situation above) pay an estimated monthly amount, (say $100) to demonstrate good faith and make them come after me. When they do, I can ask them to demonstrate the accuracy of the bill. If I have to go after them, I have to demonstrate the inaccuracy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7924979d20f06b4944df764769fc72a",
"text": "If something in any transaction in life—financial or otherwise—doesn’t make you feel comfortable and the choice is between saving money with one thing versus another, don’t sell your personal needs short. Pay more elsewhere that treats you the way you expect to be treated. In the long run the $$$ you “save” in a cheaper transaction might cost you more in the headaches and annoyance you have to swallow in dealing with this “bargain” in the future. Your question is this: “Do his sales tactics indicate other underlying problems? How can I deal effectively with those tactics?” And you state this as well: “To make a long story short, the dealer's aggressive sales tactics have made me somewhat uncomfortable.” And finally ask: “How can I deal effectively with those tactics?” Okay, first and foremost if you feel discomfort in anything in life—not just a financial situation—just walk away. You might have to say “No…” when doing this but it’s not always the case you will have to counter aggression with aggression. And specifically in the case of a purchase like this, you need to also ask yourself: “Is this discount being offered me worth the headache I am getting?” At the end of the day money is meaningless and has it’s main worth as an economic motivator/stimulator: Someone has a need and someone else has something that can solve that need. What would it take for the side of need to connect to the side of solution to that need? This is the basic concept surrounding all economics. So that said, I have personally avoided buying things for less money and paid slightly more elsewhere for a service experience that made me feel comfortable. At the end of the day, if you feel happy in the transaction it helps in the long run more than—let’s say—the $20 to $40 you “save” by buying from someone else. Also—on the side of customer service—this person’s sales techniques sound like something out of a very old fashioned sales playbook. Nowadays it’s all about relationships and service: The immediate sale is not as important for competent and reputable businesses because they know a better customer service experience will bring people back. So it doesn’t matter how long this guy has been in business: It could be that he’s been in business a long time just because he has been in business a long time. That said—and in the case of musical instruments—maybe this guy is really good at care and upkeep of instruments but has crappy sales techniques. Keep that in mind as well and just push back on their sales methods. For things like musical instruments, people might be jerks on the sales side but in the maintenance and repair side they are great. Will you need to go to them if/when your instrument needs repair? Or you don’t care? At the end of the day, go with your gut. And if your gut says, “No…” then just go somewhere else and spend your money on an item you like from a place that treats you the way you need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3fd5c9c209bfbf5883680b43d728caf",
"text": "You will be best to cancel the original instruction first, as you will have to wait for any pending payments to be received, as the banks will not entertain multiple refunds. After this can be confirmed the account will simply show a credit which you ask for. Many lenders/banks process these type of transactions after a period of time ie 30 days and there will be no way to speed this up, so the sooner you act the better. When you contact the bank have bank details for the payment(they might transfer externally fingers crossed), or you may receive a cheque in the post. Try to avoid complicating the matter with changes of address and ringing before you have cancelled the instruction etc if possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7be1da953541e9ce40e4598da9a824e4",
"text": "\"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, \"\"lag time\"\", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0088551e56693f9713c06610f68b44f1",
"text": "You can't make your bank do a charge back. This function is to assist with straight up fraud, not a customer service mistake. (Think spoofed or stolen card or if a vendor intentionally acted fraudulently.) While you may believe what they did is fraud, your bank will require that you provide the vendor with the opportunity to rectify the situation themselves. Trying to call back and giving up after a long hold time won't meet their standards. If banks started letting anyone unhappy with a vendor start doing charge backs, they would be doing nothing else all day. The issues you're describing has not reached the threshold for the bank to authorize a charge back. Comcast has local and regional offices, and you could go in person to speak with someone. Maybe there isn't one near you. There are non-peak hours which wait times will be less. You'll just have to grin and bear it if you truly want the money back. Then, take your business elsewhere and post bad reviews online. Always keep in mind that when you eventually speak with someone, they will not be the person that messed up, and you should be overly nice and polite to them. I promise it will yield far better results than being surly and demanding. Another way to get Comcast's attention would be to file a complaint with the BBB. It might take longer, but I've had this work with big companies, usually with good results. Again, be nice to whomever contacts you. In reference to your recent duplicate question: Mastercard won't be able to help at all. They play no part in the transaction at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24b171d757ef9cc138878484923fbde",
"text": "\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "964ef441a36a8f3558d245c82db5bc45",
"text": "It may have been the standard practice for a long time, and indeed it still is the common practice for my credit union to apply all excess payment directly to the principal. At the risk of sounding a little cynical, I will suggest that there is a profit motive in the move to not applying excess payments to principal unless directly instructed to do so. Interest accrued isn't reduced until the principal is reduced, so it benefits the creditor to both have the money in advance and to not apply it to the principal. You should probably move forward with the expectation that all of your creditors are adversarial even if only in a passive-aggressive manner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6088456fab65cad84e6a54bbf6e1bf7",
"text": "I don't see this article being about the merit of the customers claim but rather the condition of sale: > You agree not to file any complaint, chargeback, claim, dispute, or make any public forum post, review, Better Business Bureau complaint, social media post, or any public statement regarding the order, our website, or any issue regarding your order, for any reason, within this 90 day period, or to threaten to do so within the 90 day period, or it is a breach of the terms of sale, creating liability for damages in the amount of $250, plus any additional fees, damages - both consequential and incidental, calculated on an ongoing basis. I'm happy to rally my pitchfork against any company that includes these conditions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e36c25e1dba1eb52f81421c5381ad65",
"text": "File a small claims lawsuit in the city that the person resides. The court will charge you a small fee and give you a date. They will also summons the other person to appear. Bring all the documentation that shows the following BONUS - Bring the documentation that shows them saying they will not pay you back I had to sue someone once for a very similar problem. I lent them a 6 month interest free loan. They told me to shove it after 6 months and 1 day. So I sued them. The court should accept facebook messages as proof. More than likely though your friend wont even show up which means you win by default. Here's the bad news, that was the easy part. Just because you win in court doesn't mean the money appears the next day. There are a couple ways you may have to recover your money. Best of luck to you!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffd92d990a6b96092871ac822eef4a57",
"text": "\"This is not a normal occurrence, and you have every right to be annoyed, but the technical way it usually happens goes like this: What can happen is when the merchant incorrectly completes the transaction without referencing the pre-authorization transaction. The bank effectively doesn't \"\"know\"\" this is the same transaction, so they process it the same way they process any other purchase, and it has no effect on the pre-authorization and related held/pending transaction. As far as the bank knows, you purchased a second set of blinds in the store for $200 and are still waiting on the first order to come in, they have no idea the store screwed up. The reason this is possible is the purpose of the pre-auth in the first place is that it is a contractual agreement between the bank (credit card) and the merchant that the funds are available, will be available except under rare special circumstances, and thus they can go ahead and process the order. This lets the merchant be secure in the knowledge that they can collect their payment, but you aren't paying interest or monthly payments on something you haven't even gotten yet! This system works reasonably well for everyone - right up until someone screws up and fails to properly release a hold, makes a second transaction instead of properly referencing the first one, or the bank screws up their system and fails to correctly match referenced pre-authorization codes to purchases. The problem is that this should not be a normal occurrence, and the people you are speaking with to try to sort out the issue often do not have the authority or knowledge necessary to properly fix the issue, or its such a hassle for them that they hope you just go away and time fixes the issue on its own. The only sure-fire solution to this is: make sure you have so much extra credit line that this doesn't effect you and you can safely let it time out on its own, or stop doing business with this combination of merchant/payment that creates the problem. Back when my credit limits were being pushed, I would never pay at gas pumps because their hold polices were so weird and unpredictable, and I would only pre-pay inside or with cash to avoid the holds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4c8a00c2ccd550325c09cc501ffa17f",
"text": "You can either write it off or pursue it. If you write it off I wouldn't do business with the client again, until they bring their balance owed to you back to zero. If you pursue it, try to reach out to the client and find out why they are not paying what they owe you and try to work out a deal with them if they seem negotiable. If they aren't negotiable then you could take the issue to court, but you'll only be proving a point by then.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29d14308ca1707942c0fe3a844c420fe",
"text": "I did just what you suggest. The card company honored the charge, they told me the temporary number was solely for the purpose of assigning a number to one vendor/business. So even though I set a low limit, the number was still active and the card company paid the request. Small price to pay, but it didn't go as I wished. For this purpose, I've used Visa/Mastercard gift cards. They are often on sale for face value and no additional fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43faf3384b9ca7f557b35ff222e3f0d7",
"text": "You need to know your costs. Some are fixed. Review them. There are some expenses that are variable. Review the amount and if it is reasonable. Review your large orders. Are they increasing? Ask him how he thinks people will steal from the company. Did he see a large order and the customer will default?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01cacef29c64c11de2e1789f6891d83c",
"text": "It's a pretty good tip. People are often telling you the answer but not explicitly. Example: You call about bad service and demand a refund. The employee tells you: I'm sorry, sir, I can't give you back your money. But maybe he actually said: I'm sorry, sir, *I* can't give you back your money. Maybe someone else can? I'm sorry, sir, I can't *give* you back your money. So not give but trade? I'm sorry, sir, I can't give you back your *money*. So what can you give?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeeec46755857b7736b4766bddabbf33",
"text": "First off... If you provide good service than you shouldn't worry... Since you are providing a service and your customers send payment to your PayPal, if there is no dispute made within 90 days, the customer cannot dispute further. However if it is disputed within 90 days than you may run into some trouble. But it may be in your favor if PayPal finds no signs of fraud and since it's a service payment, PayPal cannot really track it compared to if your customers paid you for a product which can be disputed up to 180 Days?? I may be wrong on that one. However if it does get disputed and PayPal favors your clients than you have to pay it back one way or another. You may want to ask your customers or put yourself a description of the service and terms in the invoice. It may help resolve future disputes. I know this because I have called PayPal customer service and ask which I suggest you do too.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9fe00b43a03b528cd6afd5f8f5a8961a
|
Retirement formula for annual compound interest with changing principal
|
[
{
"docid": "37528e2711eafb0e0573772a2bf49083",
"text": "The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26821c66dd72cf208a64336d6b63caa5",
"text": "I've found the systems that seem to work. Firstly, you need to find how much money is required to pay for the withdrawals after retirement, while still accruing interest. I couldn't seem to do this with an equation, but this bit of javascript worked: yearsToLast: Number of years of yearly withdrawals yearlyWithdrawal: Amount to withdraw each year interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest Now that we have how much is required at the beginning of the retirement, to figure out how much to add yearly to hit this mark, you'd use: amount: Previously found required amount to reach interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest yearsSaving: Number of years saving till amount needs to be hit I hope this helps some other poor soul, because I could find squat on how to do this. Max",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "00155b67fc1e919484a70eadd7488566",
"text": "It would help if we had numbers to walk you through the analysis. Current balance, rate, remaining term, and the new mortgage details. To echo and elaborate on part of Ben's response, the most important thing is to not confuse cash flow with savings. If you have 15 years to go, and refinance to 30 years, at the rate rate, your payment drops by 1/3. Yet your rate is identical in this example. The correct method is to take the new rate, plug it into a mortgage calculator or spreadsheet using the remaining months on the current mortgage, and see the change in payment. This savings is what you should divide into closing costs to calculate the breakeven. It's up to you whether to adjust your payments to keep the term the same after you close. With respect to keshlam, rules of thumb often fail. There are mortgages that build the closing costs into the rate. Not the amount loaned, the rate. This means that as rates dropped, moving from 5.25% to 5% made sense even though with closing costs there were 4.5% mortgages out there. Because rates were still falling, and I finally moved to a 3.5% loan. At the time I was serial refinancing, the bank said I could return to them after a year if rates were still lower. In my opinion, we are at a bottom, and the biggest question you need to answer is whether you'll remain in the house past your own breakeven time. Last - with personal finance focusing on personal, the analysis shouldn't ignore the rest of your balance sheet. Say you are paying $1500/mo with 15 years to go. Your budget is tight enough that you've chosen not to deposit to your 401(k). (assuming you are in the US or country with pretax retirement account options) In this case, holding rates constant, a shift to 30 years frees up about $500/mo. In a matched 401(k), your $6000/yr is doubled to $12K/year. Of course, if the money would just go in the market unmatched, members here would correctly admonish me for suggesting a dangerous game, in effect borrowing via mortgage to invest in the market. The matched funds, however are tough to argue against.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98b754f24b889e94e2c6761e6418131a",
"text": "What is the formula for calculating the total cost of a loan with extra payments towards the principal? The formula you require is the standard one for calculating the time to repay. With larger repayments the time to completely repay the loan is reduced. Where The total cost of the loan is then n * d. Explanation & Calculation The formula for a loan is derived from the sum of the cash flows discounted to present value being equal to the principal. For further info see the section here titled: Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity The summation can be reduced to a closed form by induction: Rearranging for d and n With the OP's figures The original monthly repayment is $1,006.96 Adding $200 each month ... With the higher repayment the loan is repaid in 257.36 months instead of 360. (Of course a bank would simply take a reduced payment in month 258, but the amounts work out the same.) The saving is $51,882.37 Addendum If the repayments increase was made part-way through the term of the loan the summation and formula would be Where Then For example, if for the first ten years the payments are $1,006.96 and for the remaining time the repayments are $1,206.96 The loan is completely repaid in 302.528 months. The saving is Plotting over a range of m months:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98d274e0165cfccc061e8c55403a3152",
"text": "Yes your basic math is correct. If your tax bracket never changes, then either type of retirement account will end up in the same place. Assuming that there are no income restrictions that will limit your ability to contribute to the type of account you want. Now your job is to guess what your tax bracket will be each and every year for the next 3 or 4 decades. Events that will influence your bracket: getting married; having children; buying a house; selling a house; paying for college; the cost of medical care; moving to a state with a different state tax structure. Of course that assumes that you don't get a big bonus one year or that congress changes the tax brackets. That is why many people have both types of retirement accounts: Roth and non-Roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b73b0ea57bf9938c6d3d2aaaf99b4c1b",
"text": "\"Well, the first one is based on the \"\"Pert\"\" formula for continuously-compounded present value, while the second one is the periodically-compounded variant. Typically, the continuously-compounded models represent the ideal; as the compounding period of time-valued money shrinks towards zero, and the discount rate (or interest rate if positive) stays constant over the time period examined, the periodic equation's results approach that of the continuously-compounded equation. Those two assumptions (a constant rate and continuous balance adjustment from interest) that allow simplification to the continuous form are usually incorrect in real-world finance; virtually all financial institutions accrue interest monthly, for a variety of reasons including simpler bookkeeping and less money paid or owed in interest. They also, unless prohibited by contract, accrue this interest based on a rate that can change daily or even more granularly based on what financial markets are doing. Most often, the calculation is periodic based on the \"\"average daily balance\"\" and an agreed rate that, if variable, is based on the \"\"average daily rate\"\" over the previous observed period. So, you should use the first form for fast calculation of a rough value based on estimated variables. You should use the second form when you have accurate periodic information on the variables involved. Stated alternately, use the first form to predict the future, use the second form in retrospect to the past.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77f2fb35a2beff9e1f1c485393fb6fd7",
"text": "\"Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an \"\"accounting\"\" problem but just a bond problem. Here it goes GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date. My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate? The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year. I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78ea266bd36fb5b163f07f784e26b5d4",
"text": "I would like to know how they calculated such monthly payment The formula is: Your values would come out to be: r = (1+3.06/(100*365))^31-1=0.002602 (converting your annual percentage to a monthly rate equivalent of daily compounded interest) PV = 12865.57 n = 48 Inserting your values into the formula: P = [r*(PV)]/[1-(1+r)^(-n)] P = [0.002602*(12865.57)]/[1-(1.002602)^(-48)] P = 285.47",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98f243b08477754a4db0a21dd740ad38",
"text": "The really simple answer is that compound interest is compound not linear. Money invested for longer earns more interest, and the sooner you start investing, the longer it has to earn interest. These ideas come out of pension investment where 65 is the usual retirement age and what you invest in the 1st ten years of your pension (or any other compound interest fund) accounts for over 50% of what you will get out. 25 to 65 is forty years and $100 invested at 7% for 40 years is $1400. $100 invested every year for 40 years the pot would be worth just under $20,000. At 30 years, it would be worth under $10,000, and at 20 years it would be worth only $4099. If you double your investment amount every 10 years you would have invested $15700, and the pot would be worth $45,457. Do exactly the same but starting at 35 instead of 25 and your pot would only be worth $14,200.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "544f3cee0128618541de2661be51233f",
"text": "First, assuming you are making payments for a savings deposit. The present value of the deposit is the sum of the all the payments discounted to present value. In this case they would be discounted by the rate of inflation: £100 deposited next year is worth less than £100 today because it will be eroded by inflation. With a higher rate of inflation the payments are discounted more heavily, so the present value decreases. A deposit, or annuity due (see Calculating the Present Value of an Annuity Due), can be expressed mathematically like so:- ∴ by induction So for example, the following annuity has a present value of £1,136.76 The total amount that will be paid for the annuity is 12 x £100 = £1,200. With a higher rate of inflation, say 2% per month, and with the same 12 x £100 payments, the present value of the annuity decreases. In Excel (£1,078.68) A similar case is that for a loan, or ordinary annuity (see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity), except the discounting factor is the loan interest rate rather than inflation and repayments are made at the end of each period rather than at the start. The present value of a loan is the value of the all the future repayments discounted to present value. With a higher interest rate the payments are discounted more heavily, so the present value decreases. A loan can be expressed mathematically like so:- ∴ by induction So for example, the following values fulfill a loan worth £1,125.51 The total amount that will be paid for the loan is 12 x £100 = £1,200. With a higher rate of interest, say 2% per month, and the same 12 x £100 repayments, the present value of the loan that can be obtained decreases. In Excel (£1,057.53)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41e358f0c4f17a2e8510b504eef1f6d2",
"text": "Retirement calculation, in general, should be based on the amount of money needed per year/month and the expected life expectancy. Life expectancy, if calculated to 90 years (let's say) indicates that post retirement age (60 yrs.) your accumulated/invested money should generate adequate income to cover your expenses till 90 years. The problem in general is not how long you shall live but what would be your expected spending from retirement to end of life expectancy. The idea is at the minimum your investments should generate income that is inflation adjusted. One way to do this is to consider your monthly expense now i.e. the expense that is absolute minimum for carrying on (food, electricity, water, medicines, household consumables, car petrol, insurance, servicing, entertainment, newspaper etc.) this does not contain the amortizable liabilities (home loan, child's education, other debts). It is better to take this amount per family rather than per person and yearly rather than monthly (as we tend to miss a lot of yearly expenses). This amount that you need today will increase at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the average inflation. For example, if today you spend 100 per year in 7 years you will need to spend appx. 200 at 10% inflation. Now, your investments will not increase post your retirement, so your current investment needs to do two things (1) give you your yearly requirement (2) grow by a fixed amount so that next year it can give you CAGR adjusted returns. In general, this kind of investment grows by high net amounts initially and slowly the growth decrease. The above can be calculated by Net Present value (NPV) formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The key is to remember that the money that is invested when you retire should be able to give you inflation adjusted returns to cover your yearly expenses. How much money you need depends on your life style/expectation and how much return is received depends on the instruments that you invest on. As for your question above on the difference between the age of you and your spouse, it better to go with the consolidated family requirement and get an idea of how much investment is necessary and provision the same as soon as possible from your as well as your spouse's income. Hope this helps.- thanks",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "415e726f50391132ed4c01460adb72a3",
"text": "\"The formula you are looking for is pretty complicated. It's given here: http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda3661.htm You might prefer to let somebody else do the grunt work for you. This page will calculate the probability for you: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/normal.aspx. In your case, you'd enter mean=.114, standard deviation=.132, and \"\"standard score\"\"= ... oh, you didn't say what you're paying on your debt. Let's say it's 6%, i.e. .06. Note that this page will give you the probability that the actual number will be less than or equal to the \"\"standard score\"\". Enter all that and click the magic button and the probability that the investment will produce less than 6% is ... .34124, or 34%. The handy rule of thumb is that the probability is about 68% that the actual number will be within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% that it will be within 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% that it will be within 3. Which isn't exactly what you want because you don't want \"\"within\"\" but \"\"less than\"\". But you could get that by just adding half the difference from 100% for each of the above, i.e. instead of 68-95-99.7 it would be 84-98-99.9. Oh, I missed that in a follow-up comment you say you are paying 4% on a mortgage which you are adjusting to 3% because of tax implications. Probability based on mean and SD you gave of getting less than 3% is 26%. I didn't read the article you cite. I assume the standard deviation given is for the rate of return for one year. If you stretch that over many years, the SD goes down, as many factors tend to even out. So while the probability that money in a given, say, mutual fund will grow by less than 3% in one year is fairly high -- the 25 - 35% we're talking here sounds plausible to me -- the probability that it will grow by an average of less than 3% over a period of 10 or 15 or 20 years is much less. Further Thought There is, of course, no provably-true formula for what makes a reasonable risk. Suppose I offered you an investment that had a 99% chance of showing a $5,000 profit and a 1% chance of a $495,000 loss. Would you take it? I wouldn't. Even though the chance of a loss is small, if it happened, I'd lose everything I have. Is it worth that risk for the modest potential profit? I'd say no. Of course to someone who has a billion dollars, this might be a very reasonable risk. If it fails, oh well, that could really cut in to what he can spend on lunch tomorrow.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bd07322012f097a21bf63a11cc85067",
"text": "Since the compounding period and payment period differs (Compounded Daily vs Paid Monthly), you need to find the effective interest rate for one payment period (month). This means that each month you pay 0.33387092772% of the outstanding principal as interest. Then use this formula to find the number of months: Where PV = 21750, Pmt = 220, i = 0.0033387092772 That gives 120 Months. Depending on the day count convention, (30/360 or 30.416/365 or Actual/Actual), the answer may differ slightly. Using Financial Calculator gives extremely similar answer. The total cash paid in the entire course of the loan is 120 x $220 = $26,400",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7",
"text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0fcaada709d1c45c7d277159146313d",
"text": "With 10% return over three years, depositing $900 each month, in three years $34,039.30. Re. downvote. I guess this is too brief and without explanation, but I was rushing. If you want further explanation of how this is calculated check the link already posted by JoeTaxpayer, and have a look at the formula for continuously compounded return. Also, try out the numbers in the simplified example below yourself. E.g. Addendum mhoran_psprep has pointed out that I didn't read the OP's post closely enough. With rolling investments the total return will be: Where n is the month number i.e. 36, 37, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34ff158b6ef5069454476b94d3c6f49b",
"text": "Okay, I think I managed to find the precise answer to this problem! It involves solving a non-linear exponential equation, but I also found a good approximate solution using the truncated Taylor series. See below for a spreadsheet you can use. Let's start by defining the growth factors per period, for money in the bank and money invested: Now, let S be the amount ready to be invested after n+1 periods; so the first of that money has earned interest for n periods. That is, The key step to solve the problem was to fix the total number of periods considered. So let's introduce a new variable: t = the total number of time periods elapsed So if money is ready to invest every n+1 periods, there will be t/(n+1) separate investments, and the future value of the investments will be: This formula is exact in the case of integer t and n, and a good approximation when t and n are not integers. Substituting S, we get the version of the formula which explicitly depends on n: Fortunately, only a couple of terms in FV depend on n, so we can find the derivative after some effort: Equating the derivative to zero, we can remove the denominator, and assuming t is greater than zero, we can divide by the constant ( 1-G t ): To simplify the equation, we can define some extra constants: Then, we can define a function f(n) and write the equation as: Note that α, β, γ, G, and R are all constant. From here there are two options: Use Newton's method or another numerical method for finding the positive root of f(n). This can be done in a number of software packages like MATLAB, Octave, etc, or by using a graphics calculator. Solve approximately using a truncated Taylor series polynomial. I will use this method here. The Taylor series of f(n), centred around n=0, is: Truncating the series to the first three terms, we get a quadratic polynomial (with constant coefficients): Using R, G, α, β and γ defined above, let c0, c1 and c2 be the coefficients of the truncated Taylor series for f(n): Then, n should be rounded to the nearest whole number. To be certain, check the values above and below n using the formula for FV. Using the example from the question: For example, I might put aside $100 every week to invest into a stock with an expected growth of 9% p.a., but brokerage fees are $10/trade. For how many weeks should I accumulate the $100 before investing, if I can put it in my high-interest bank account at 4% p.a. until then? Using Newton's method to find roots of f(n) above, we get n = 14.004. Using the closed-form approximate solution, we get n = 14.082. Checking this against the FV with t = 1680 (evenly divisible by each n + 1 tested): Therefore, you should wait for n = 14 periods, keeping that money in the bank, investing it together with the money in the next period (so you will make an investment every 14 + 1 = 15 weeks.) Here's one way to implement the above solution with a spreadsheet. StackExchange doesn't allow tables in their syntax at this time, so I'll show a screenshot of the formulae and columns you can copy and paste: Formulae: Copy and paste column A: Copy and paste column B: Results: Remember, n is the number of periods to accumulate money in the bank. So you will want to invest every n+1 weeks; in this case, every 15 weeks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18cd8234a214ff8a7f311bcf36715bc1",
"text": "If you need to shop coins, you could do your personal improvement, however, this may be tricky because of even easy documentation errors fee extra. For many little employer proprietors, the high-quality picks the use of a business enterprise company, which is a fee-powerful preference to make sure your documentation is accurate and filed right away with conditions. If you're concerned in Delaware LLC with as little quotes as viable, begin with the aid of considering conditions wherein you'll include. You do no longer require work within the state you select, however it may be more reasonable for pick out your home circumstance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2d85c4c171b61dabb2c10df8a18742a4
|
What exactly happens during a settlement period?
|
[
{
"docid": "22f5b5bd6ddbadb3f7c70481c5b68139",
"text": "\"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31bb2bcfa644d2d77d932c3d312c5cf9",
"text": "During the settlement period, the buyer transfers payment to the seller and the seller transfers ownership to the buyer. This is really a holdover from the days when so much of stock trading was done by individual human traders, and computers were still not a huge part of the operation. Back then, paper tickets for trades exchanged hands, and the time period was actually 5 days, so 3 days is an improvement. A settlement period was necessary for everyone to figure out their trades and do what was necessary to make the settlements happen, so it was not always a quick process, mainly because of smaller trading firms that didn't have technology to help them along. Nowadays, technology makes settlements easy, and they usually occur at the end of the trading day. The trading firms sum up their trades, figure out who they owe, and send lump sum settlements to the counterparties to their trades. If anything, the 3-day period may just be used now to let parties verify trades before settling. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b3ab4e4fb8cddfc0117247a078637e87",
"text": "\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1fdcd7e54bb83602f5e55c5b27dc940",
"text": "At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fd9eff2faeeb0d51d749525ca2d2c11",
"text": "What typically happens to brokerage accounts during similar situations? This depends on country, time and situation. Nothing is predictable in such situations. In Greece during the said period the stock exchanges were closed for 5 weeks. There was no trading. Edits: Every situation is different and it would be unfair to compare one against another or use it to predict something else. Right now in India due to demonitization, cash withdrawal is limited. One can trade in stocks, unlimited bank transfers, transfer money out of India ...etc. Everything same except for cash withdrawal. In 1990, the ASEAN countries survived a financial collapse, everything was allowed except moving money out of country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1869cf15c6b9a97003f6139f6dfb8f0",
"text": "No, you cannot withdraw the money until settlement day. Some brokers will allow you to trade with unsettled funds, but you cannot withdraw it until it is settled. Think about it, when you buy stock you have to pay for them by T+3, so if you sell you actually don't receive the funds until T+3.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ad39f83aacc8997b0def6e760c28763",
"text": "You have to call Interactive Brokers for this. This is what you should do, they might even have a web chat. These are very broker specific idiosyncrasies, because although margin rules are standardized to an extent, when they start charging you for interest and giving you margin until settlement may not be standardized. I mean, I can call them and tell you what they said for the 100 rep.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32c2716abf18c9873139c68bc1960ebb",
"text": "Looks like the result got decided recently, with a little uncertainty about exactly how much is the total allowed claims: http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/plan_disclosure.html http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/pdf/GUC_Trust_Agreement.pdf They give the following example: Accordingly, pursuant to Section 5.3 of the GUC Trust Agreement, a holder of a Disputed Claim in the Amount of $2,000,000 that was Allowed in the amount of $1,000,000 (A) as of the end of the first calendar quarter would receive: Corresponding to the Distribution to the Holders of Initial Allowed Claims: Corresponding to the First Quarter Distribution to Holders of Units: Total:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df7fcd1a81102f1a96ffe8c8bfdb0914",
"text": "\"Ignoring the complexities of a standardised and regulated market, a futures contract is simply a contract that requires party A to buy a given amount of a commodity from party B at a specified price. The future can be over something tangible like pork bellies or oil, in which case there is a physical transfer of \"\"stuff\"\" or it can be over something intangible like shares. The purpose of the contract is to allow the seller to \"\"lock-in\"\" a price so that they are not subject to price fluctuations between the date the contract is entered and the date it is complete; this risk is transferred to the seller who will therefore generally pay a discounted rate from the spot price on the original day. In many cases, the buyer actually wants the \"\"stuff\"\"; futures contracts between farmers and manufacturers being one example. The farmer who is growing, say, wool will enter a contract to supply 3000kg at $10 per kg (of a given quality etc. there are generally price adjustments detailed for varying quality) with a textile manufacturer to be delivered in 6 months. The spot price today may be $11 - the farmer gives up $1 now to shift the risk of price fluctuations to the manufacturer. When the strike date rolls around the farmer delivers the 3000kg and takes the money - if he has failed to grow at least 3000kg then he must buy it from someone or trigger whatever the penalty clauses in the contract are. For futures over shares and other securities the principle is exactly the same. Say the contract is for 1000 shares of XYZ stock. Party A agrees to sell these for $10 each on a given day to party B. When that day rolls around party A transfers the shares and gets the money. Party A may have owned the shares all along, may have bought them before the settlement day or, if push comes to shove, must buy them on the day of settlement. Notwithstanding when they bought them, if they paid less than $10 they make a profit if they pay more they make a loss. Generally speaking, you can't settle a futures contract with another futures contract - you have to deliver up what you promised - be it wool or shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95c2adec4356b3c197307f57a31ce4a5",
"text": "Brokerage firms must settle funds promptly, but there's no explicit definition for this in U.S. federal law. See for example, this article on settling trades in three days. Wikipedia also has a good write-up on T+3. It is common practice, however. It takes approximately three days for the funds to be available to me, in my Canadian brokerage account. That said, the software itself prevents me from using funds which are not available, and I'm rather surprised yours does not. You want to be careful not to be labelled a pattern day trader, if that is not your intention. Others can better fill you in on the consequences of this. I believe it will not apply to you unless you are using a margin account. All but certainly, the terms of service that you agreed to with this brokerage will specify the conditions under which they can lock you out of your account, and when they can charge interest. If they are selling your stock at times you have not authorised (via explicit instruction or via a stop-loss order), you should file a complaint with the S.E.C. and with sufficient documentation. You will need to ensure your cancel-stop-loss order actually went through, though, and the stock was sold anyway. It could simply be that it takes a full business day to cancel such an order.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90ce3189b5431a3e5deccd34b726d818",
"text": "The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "526bc7b18ef95d6807cad2ecda7b09ab",
"text": "If you participate, you will either get some money or some other renumeration. If you do not participate, you will not get anything. The only risk of participating is that if you have suffered actual damages, the settlement may under-compensate you. By significant, I mean thousands of dollars, since bringing suit yourself would be very expensive. Unless you can demonstrate that you have suffered from significant damages as a result of MBNA's bad behavior, joining the class to get whatever you are going to get is almost certainly a no-brainer decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe0000ec75eb49b8dd3971dad3a268c4",
"text": "Typically there are several parties involved: (Sometimes one company plays multiple roles; for example AmEx is a network and an issuer.) When a merchant charges a card and the issuer approves it, money is transferred from the issuer to the acquirer to the merchant. This settlement process takes some time, but generally is completed within a day. Of course, most cardholders pay on a monthly basis. The issuer must use their own funds in the mean time. If the cardholder defaults, the issuer takes the loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "123b23a493b497031a0d631a994c11dc",
"text": "The T+3 settlement date only affects cash accounts. In a cash account, you need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your funds to be available to make your next trade. But if you convert your cash account into a margin account, then you do not need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your next trade - your broker will allow you to make another trade immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12679eab5d95c3cab86365b68d69c28d",
"text": "I used to work on the software in the front office (and a bit of the middle office) of a brokerage firm. This page describes the process pretty well. Basically there are three parts: So to your question: how does an order get executed? ETFs work the same since they are effectively shares of a mutual fund's assets. True mutual fund shares work differently since they don't get traded in the market. They get traded at the end of the market as just a bookkeeping exercise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79b730bea961def6987f5d292bed6251",
"text": "Let P denote the amount of the investment, R the rate of return and I the rate of inflation. For simplicity, assume that the payment p is made annually right after the return has been earned. Thus, at the end if the year, the investment P has increased to P*(1+R) and p is returned as the annuity payment. If I = 0, the entire return can be paid out as the payment, and thus p = P*R. That is, at the end of the year, when the dust settles after the return P*R has been collected and paid out as the annuity payment, P is again available at the beginning of the next year to earn return at rate R. We have P*(1+R) - p = P If I > 0, then at the end of the year, after the dust settles, we cannot afford to have only P available as the investment for next year. Next year's payment must be p*(1+I) and so we need a larger investment since the rate of return is fixed. How much larger? Well, if the investment at the beginning of next year is P*(1+I), it will earn exactly enough additional money to pay out the increased payment for next year, and have enough left over to help towards future increases in payments. (Note that we are assuming that R > I. If R < I, a perpetuity cannot be created.) Thus, suppose that we choose p such that P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) Multiplying this equation by (1+I), we have [P(1+I)]*(1+R) - [p*(1+I)] = P*(1+I)^2 In words, at the start of next year, the investment is P*(1+I) and the return less the increased payout of p*(1+I) leaves an investment of P*(1+I)^2 for the following year. Each year, the payment and the amount to be invested for the following year increase by a factor of (1+I). Solving P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) for p, we get p = P*(R-I) as the initial perpetuity payment and the payment increases by a factor (1+I) each year. The initial investment is P and it also increases by a factor of (1+I) each year. In later years, the investment is P*(1+I)^n at the start of the year, the payment is p*(1+I)^n and the amount invested for the next year is P*(1+I)^{n+1}. This is the same result as obtained by the OP but written in terms that I can understand, that is, without the financial jargon about discount rates, gradients, PV, FV and the like.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1e85d77351e39748acab3932a4c949f",
"text": "I wish this was the case in Canada. I lost about 60k on my home in one year and have to sell now to move for work. In the US I could simply default and the bank takes the loss. In Canada if I default, CMHC pays the bank, then I'm sued by CMHC and stuck with the bad debt. Simply put - here the onus of repayment is on the lender, not the lending institution. It sounds good until you are the one looking at losing your shirt.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2a0fe0dc4cc341d0ee1d7688fc229fc0
|
Should I purchase a whole life insurance policy? (I am close to retirement)
|
[
{
"docid": "abfe341af61637ca246e2c5f0a6d6b15",
"text": "\"First of all, congratulations on being in an incredible financial position. you have done well. So let's look at the investment side first. If you put 400,000 in a decent index fund at an average 8% growth, and add 75,000 every year, in 10 years you'll have about $1.95 Million, $800k of which is capital gain (more or less due to market risk, of course) - or $560k after 30% tax. If you instead put it in the whole life policy at 1.7% you'll have about $1.3 Million, $133k of which is tax-free capital gain. So the insurance is costing you $430K in opportunity cost, since you could have done something different with the money for more return. The fund you mentioned (Vanguard Wellington) has a 10-year annualized growth of 7.13%. At that growth rate, the opportunity cost is $350k. Even with a portfolio with a more conservative 5% growth rate, the opportunity cost is $178k Now the life insurance. Life insurance is a highly personal product, but I ran a quick quote for a 65-year old male in good health and got a premium of $11,000 per year for a $2M 10-year term policy. So the same amount of term life insurance costs only $110,000. Much less than the $430k in opportunity cost that the whole life would cost you. In addition, you have a mortgage that's costing you about $28K per year now (3.5% of 800,000). Why would you \"\"invest\"\" in a 1.7% insurance policy when you are paying a \"\"low\"\" 3.5% mortgage? I would take as much cash as you are comfortable with and pay down the mortgage as much as possible, and get it paid off quickly. Then you don't need life insurance. Then you can do whatever you want. Retire early, invest and give like crazy, travel the world, whatever. I see no compelling reason to have life insurance at all, let alone life insurance wrapped in a bad investment vehicle.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e15a5b72f9e1e52242505a6f3cc09a2c",
"text": "I'll start by saying that if this is being explored to scratch a specific itch you have then great, if this was a cold call it's probably safe to ignore it. Certain whole life products (they vary in quality by carrier) can make sense for very high earners who are looking for additional tax preferred places to store money. So after you IRA, 401(k), etc options are maxed out but you still have income you'd like to hide from taxes whole life can be a potential vehicle because gains and death benefit are generally exempt from income taxes. Be on the look out for loads charged to your money as it comes in to the policy. Life insurance in general is meant to keep your dependents going without having to sell off assets in the event of your death. People may plan for things like school tuition, mortgage/property tax for your spouse. If you own a business with a couple of partners it's somewhat common for the partners to buy policies on each other to buyout a spouse to avoid potential operating conflicts. Sometimes there can be estate planning issues, if you're looking to transfer assets when you ultimately pass it can make sense to form a trust and load cash in to a whole life policy because death benefits can be shielded from income tax and the estate tax calculation; the current estate tax exemption is about $5.5 million today (judging from your numbers you might actually be close to that including the net value of the homes). Obviously, though, the tax rules are subject to change and you need to be deliberate in your formation of the trust in order to effectively navigate estate tax issues. You seem to have a very solid financial position from this perspective it looks like your spouse would be in good shape. If you are specifically attempting to manage potential estate tax liability you should probably involve an financial planner with experience forming and managing trusts; and you should be very involved with the process because it will absolutely make your finances more complicated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0022ac822ab0387b525238d0b7156096",
"text": "There's nothing new about Whole Life Insurance. The agent stands to earn a pretty hefty commission if he can sell it to you. I don't think your assets warrant using it for avoiding the taxes that would be due on a larger estate. I don't see a compelling reason to buy it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6919c986116458e4bbfc0dab46fc07c",
"text": "\"Disclaimer: I work in life insurance, but I am not an agent. First things first, there is not enough information here to give you an answer. When discussing life insurance, the very first things we need to fully consider are the illustration of policy values, and the contract itself. Without these, there is no way to tell if this is a good idea or not. So what are the things to look for? A. Risk appetite. People love to discuss projections of the market, like for example, \"\"7-8% a year compounded annually\"\". Go look at the historical returns of the stock market. It is never close to that projection. Life insurance, however, can give you a GUARANTEED return (this would be show in the 'Guaranteed' section of the life insurance illustration). As long as you pay your premiums, this money is guaranteed to accrue. Now most life insurance companies also show 'Non-Guaranteed' elements in their illustrations - these are non-guaranteed projections based on a scale at this point in time. These columns will show how your cash value may grow when dividends are credited to your policy (and used to buy paid-up additional insurance, which generates more dividends - this can be compared to the compounding nature of interest). B. Tax treatment. I am definitely not an expert in this area, but life insurance does have preferential tax treatment, particularly to your beneficiaries. C. Beneficiaries. Any death benefit (again, listed as guaranteed and maybe non-guaranteed values) is generally completely tax free for the beneficiary. D. Strategy. Tying all of this together, what exactly is the point of this? To transfer wealth, to accrue wealth, or some combination thereof? This is important and unstated in your question. So again, without knowing more, there is no way to answer your question. But I am surprised that in this forum, so many people are quick to jump in and say in general that whole life insurance is a scam. And even more surprising is the fact the accepted answer has already been accepted. My personal take is that if you are just trying to accrue wealth, you should probably stick to the market and maybe buy term if you want a death benefit component. This is mostly due to your age (higher risk of death = higher premiums = lower buildup) and how long of a time period you have to build up money in the policy. But if a 25 year old asked this same question, depending on his purposes, I may suggest that a WL policy is in fact a good idea.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a06d0f962d79ab8e476d9ed71d01f442",
"text": "\"Buy term and invest the rest is something you will hear all the time, but actually cash value life insurance is a very misunderstood, useful financial product. Cash value life insurance makes sense if: If you you aren't maxing out your retirement accounts, just stick with term insurance, and save as much as you can for retirement. Otherwise, if you have at least 5 or 10k extra after you've funded retirement (for at least 7 years), one financial strategy is to buy a whole life policy from one of the big three mutual insurance firms. You buy a low face value policy, for example, say 50k face value; the goal is to build cash value in the policy. Overload the policy by buying additional paid up insurance in the first 7 years of the policy, using a paid-up addition rider of the policy. This policy will then grow its cash value at around 2% to 4% over the life of the policy....similar perhaps to the part of your portfolio that would would be in muni bonds; basically you are beating inflation by a small margin. Further, as you dump money into the policy, the death benefit grows. After 7 or 8 years, the cash value of the policy should equal the money you've put into it, and your death benefit will have grown substantially maybe somewhere around $250k in this example. You can access the cash value by taking a policy loan; you should only do this when it makes sense financially or in an emergency; but the important thing to realize is that your cash is there, if you need it. So now you have insurance, you have your cash reserves. Why should you do this? You save up your cash and have access to it, and you get the insurance for \"\"free\"\" while still getting a small return on your investment. You are diversifying your financial portfolio, pushing some of your money into conservative investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "431f89ea81976d1f00f23cea8adacaa5",
"text": "\"You, yourself, cannot spend the money from life insurance because, well, you are dead. So the question becomes \"\"what is best for those you leave behind?\"\". Thus is a question that can only be answered by examining the individual(s) you would leave behind. Near as I can tell, you currently have no one else who may be significantly hurt by your passing. So you cannot answer this question until there is (are) that (those) other(s). In the meantime, 'self-insure' by saving (true investing) up the money that you would otherwise be spending on premiums.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d29f10957e2b14100a27d8ab2ce1cbd",
"text": "\"There are two types of insurance: whole life and term. I don't recommend whole life insurance, because you are insuring against something that will happen, your death. Maybe you could buy it if members of your family have a history of outliving the averages. This is called \"\"adverse selection.\"\" Term is different: it insures against your UNTIMELY death. Many people I know take term insurance for the X years until their last child leaves college, or some other well defined \"\"term.\"\" They don't want to die before this term but will be satisfied with the insurance as a \"\"consolation\"\" prize.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90a96629e1d1487295f45c0df0e5d43a",
"text": "\"Note that it isn't always clear that \"\"turning it all into an annuity\"\" is the right answer. Annuities are essentially insurance policies -- you're paying them a share of your income to guarantee a specific payout. If you outlive the actuarial tables, that may be a win. If the market crashes, that may be a win. But I'm increasingly hearing the advice that staying in investments (albeit in a very conservative position) may pay better longer. There are tools which will do monte-carlo modelling based on what the market has done in the past. You give them your estimate of how much in today's dollars would be needed to \"\"maintain your lifestyle\"\", and they'll tell you how much savings you need -- and what form you might want to keep those savings in -- to have good odds of being able to live entirely off the earnings and never touch the capital My employer makes such a tool available to us, and in fact Quicken has a simpler version built into it; it's nice that the two agree.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f72cb7e41ad67c99edfd822831b804ba",
"text": "\"Life insurance may be tax-privileged under certain circumstances. The intent must be to buy an annuity, at retirement age. Unlike \"\"banksparen\"\", you must consider what happens if you die early.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af54e9f869b44c4f65083b7c30d1f2d",
"text": "Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf53d98116e6b5288511d85a53574e6e",
"text": "If you have doubts about the long term prospects at your employer or jobs in your area, you may want to keep the option of moving to find a new job open while you save up for a larger down payment on a house. While there are insurance products out there that claim to cover your mortgage, they often have loopholes which make them difficult to collect on. Insurance companies are in business to make money and premiums are high when it's likely that people will try to collect. Splitting those premiums into your mortgage and your own self-insured unemployment fund (i.e. an emergency fund in a money market bank account) will usually be a better deal. As always, make sure you have term life insurance for a family and long term disability insurance just in case something really bad happens in the near term. Buying a home is a better financial decision when you know you'll be in an area for at least 5 years. Saving until you have 20% down on place that you can afford to pay off in 15 years (even if you take a 30 year loan) will be a lot cheaper and less stressful.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f076dd3187018636d45d0f17fa3d758",
"text": "\"Note: this answer was provided when the question was only about Life Insurance, therefore it does not address any other \"\"benefits\"\" Term Life Insurance is very easy to evaluate, once you have determined how much you need and for how long. For significant amounts of coverage they may require a physical to be performed. The price quotes will be for two levels of health, so you can compare costs from many companies quite easily. You have several sources in no particular order: employer, independent company, 3rd party like AARP, AAA, or via you bank or credit union. Note that the 3rd party will be getting a cut of the premium. Also some choices offered from the employer or 3rd party may be limited in size or duration. The independent companies will be able to have terms that extend for 10 years or more. So view the insurance offered by AARP as just another option that has to be compared to all your other options.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfd3f789eb8401cadbe5234c4f129e0f",
"text": "\"Whole life is life insurance that lasts your whole life. Seriously. Since the insurance company must make a profit, and since they know they will always pay out on a whole life policy, whole life tends to be very expensive, and has lower \"\"death\"\" benefits than a term policy. Some of these policies are \"\"paid-up\"\" policies, meaning that they are structured so that you don't have to pay premiums forever. But what it amounts to is that the insurance company invests your premiums, and then pays you a smaller \"\"dividend,\"\" much like banks do with savings accounts. Unless you are especially risk-averse, it is almost always a better decision to get an inexpensive term policy, and invest the money you save yourself, rather than letting the insurance company invest it for you and reap most of the benefits. If you are doing things properly, you won't need life insurance your whole life, as retirement investments will eventually replace your working income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ede2b51cdd872e298ff41ff9de74aa4",
"text": "Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f3358b29eec782ddab5b1b3b864a075",
"text": "\"Your wife is probably not going to be able to get a policy until all tests are complete and the doctors give her a clean bill of health. A change in your health could make your premiums 50% to 75% higher than they would be if you applied for a policy in perfect health. Health history is one of the biggest factor in calculating an LTCi premium. The average age for purchasing a policy is 59. Including all rate increases, the average long-term care insurance premium is $1,591 per year, based on my calculations from a 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners report with 2014 data. Because of new consumer protections designed to prevent rate increases, policies purchased today do cost more than older policies. In 2015, the average premium for a new policy was $2,532 per year, according to a LIMRA survey of most companies selling long-term care insurance. (Couples can get discounts as high as 30 percent when purchasing policies at the same time.) Do NOT work with just a local insurance agent who sells many different types of insurance. ONLY work with an insurance agent who specializes in LTC insurance and that represents at least 7 of the top companies. There are probably a couple of hundred agents in the country that specialize in LTC, are independent agents representing a lot of companies AND have a lot of experience. Interview at least 3 different agents. Get quotes from every agent you speak with and ask each of them their opinion about which policy you should get. Go with the agent who seems the most knowledgeable and professional. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from a \"\"financial advisor\"\". They are usually limited to offering only a few companies (because of their broker/dealer arrangements) and they rarely understand LTC underwriting. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from the company you get auto insurance or home insurance with. And do NOT buy a policy just because your retirement association or alumni association recommends it. SHOP around. In your wife's case it would probably be wise to apply to more than one company at the same time in case one of them denies her application. Here is an article I wrote for NextAvenue.org (a website owned by PBS) which answers some of the most common misconceptions about LTC insurance: An Insurance Agent’s Case for Buying Long-Term Care Insurance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21ff386e7a21906780042edb5ffa2a1d",
"text": "Good news! It will be enough if you make the most important decision after retirement; that is, the decision to live within your means. With $220,000 per year in 2015 resources, will you live in the same size home in the same location as you do now? Or will you downsize a bit and move to a town with more reasonably priced homes and lower taxes? Apply the same thinking to all of your expenses. In my opinion, making the decision to live within your means is the biggest decision you can make going into retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25874c2a7eeab0057b1f0559a8b40762",
"text": "\"Term is the way to go. Whole/universal are basically a combo of term and savings, so buy term life insurance and invest the difference in cost yourself. You should make a lot more that way (as far as savings go) than by buying whole life. By the time term life gets too expensive to be worth (when you're a lot older) you will have enough saved to become \"\"self-insured\"\". Just don't touch the savings :) You really only need insurance when there is income to replace and debts to cover - house/mortgage, kids/school, job income, etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e986d00b1b65c89f70aea126b6dfa7a3",
"text": "\"You are kind of thinking of this correctly, but you will and should pay for insurance at some point. What I mean by that is that, although the insurance company is making a profit, that removing the risk for certain incidents from your life, you are still receiving a lot of value. Things that inflict large losses in your life tend to be good insurance buys. Health, liability, long term care, long term disability and property insurance typically fall into this category. In your case, assuming you are young and healthy, it would be a poor choice to drop the major medical health insurance. There is a small chance you will get very sick in the next 10 years or so and require the use of this insurance. A much smaller chance than what is represented by the premium. But if you do get very sick, and don't have insurance, it will probably wipe you out financially. The devastation could last the rest of your life. You are paying to mitigate that possibility. And as you said, it's pretty low cost. While you seem to be really good at numbers it is hard to quantify the risk avoidance. But it must be considered in your analysis. Also along those lines is car insurance. While you may not be willing to pay for \"\"full coverage\"\" it's a great idea to max out your personal liability if you have sufficient assets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44d368f9c761debde9b6911dd5d7e889",
"text": "The problem with the cash value is that it's really slow to accumulate. For the first many years you'll just be paying premiums which are front loaded until the insurance company gets their money back. Whole life is NOT an investment, regardless of what your 'advisor' says. It's insurance, and expensive insurance at that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8835892871b61ef4de87a6ec64064dcd
|
Value of credit score if you never plan to borrow again?
|
[
{
"docid": "1f1da2383bf77d16e0fca936499ad01e",
"text": "\"In the United States, the Fair Credit Reporting Act allows companies to buy your credit information for \"\"legitimate business needs.\"\" The legitimate use of credit scores and credit reporting varies state to state, but like it or not, you can expect a lot more non-lending use of your credit information in the future. Companies and individuals use credit reports as an assessment of general behavior because, unfortunately, they work. You've seen the disclaimers about \"\"past performance…\"\", but unfortunately in this case… past performance really has been shown to be a pretty reliable indicator of future behavior. So…\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f56ea82cfd41bbaf3e175e705bb35301",
"text": "\"what are the incentives to that person to actually pay off his/her debt as opposed to just walking away from it and relying on the cash (s)he has for the future spending needs as opposed to borrowing Well, you can't just \"\"walk away\"\" from debt - you still owe it. Eventually your creditors would end up suing you in court for the money, plus interest owed. I suppose you could try to continually duck the authorities, but you'd still owe the money legally.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf72b9016862b87ac26ec47661af81e8",
"text": "If you're wealthy why do you think they wouldn't sue you for the money you owed?? And, as sunk818 says, credit scores can influence insurance costs. While you could self-insure your home you generally can't self-insure when it comes to liability coverage on a car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "124cae85af8990ca07a7801c5d000706",
"text": "Only reason I can think of is that having a credit card, or several, is handy for buying stuff on-line, or not having to haul around a fat wallet full of cash. Of course for some of us, getting the cash back and 0% interest periods are nice, too, even if we don't really need the money. Same as for instance trying to get good mpg when you're driving, even if you could easily afford to fill up a Hummer. It's a game, really.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7903f7bac6c4a5fce750be794314e88",
"text": "According to Money Girl, home insurance premiums are higher if you have a poor credit score. You might self-insure though if you are wealthy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cfb64bbf0a388ad9bda6cea06cdc2ce",
"text": "\"There's many concrete answers, but there's something circular about your question. The only thing I can think of is that phone service providers ask for credit report when you want to start a new account but I am sure that could be worked around if you just put down a cash deposit in some cases. So now the situation is flipped - you are relying on your phone company's credit! Who is to say they don't just walk away from their end of the deal now that you have paid in full? The amount of credit in this situation is conserved. You just have to eat the risk and rely on their credit, because you have no credit. It doesn't matter how much money you have - $10 or $10000 can be extorted out of you equally well if you must always pay for future goods up front. You also can't use that money month-by-month now, even in low-risk investments. Although, they will do exactly that and keep the interest. And I challenge your assumption that you will never default. You are not a seraphic being. You live on planet earth. Ever had to pay $125,000 for a chemo treatment because you got a rare form of cancer? Well, you won't be able to default on your phone plan and pay for your drug (or food, if you bankrupt yourself on the drug) because your money is already gone. I know you asked a simpler question but I can't write a good answer without pointing out that \"\"no default\"\" is a bad model, it's like doing math without a zero element. By the way, this is realistic. It applies to renting in, say, New York City. It's better to be a tenant with credit who can withhold rent in issue of neglected maintenance or gross unfair treatment, than a tenant who has already paid full rent and has left the landlord with little market incentive to do their part.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd54cde816bd45947791601cbb7f80ee",
"text": "\"You're definitely not the first to pose this question. During the peak of the housing crisis I noticed a decent amount of very high dollar properties get abandoned to their fates. Individuals who can afford the mortgage on a 5 million dollar home don't necessarily need their credit to survive so it made more sense to let the asset (now a liability) go and take the hit on their credit for a few years. Unsecured debt, as mentioned is a little trickier because its backed by default by your personal estate. If the creditor is active they will sue you and likely win unless there are issues with their paperwork. Thing is though, you might escape some impacts of the debt to your credit rating and you might not \"\"need\"\" credit, but if you were to act as a wealthy person and not \"\"new money\"\" you would observe the significant value of using credit. credit allows you to leverage your wealth and expand the capacity of your money to import your overall wealth picture. It may prove best to learn that and then make more wealth on your winnings than take the short sighted approach and welch on the debt.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a6e78d648403a607c83fb538ac0fd1d7",
"text": "I have recently been the lender to a couple people. It was substantially less money (~$3k), but I was trusting their good faith to pay me back. As a lender, I will never do it again. Reasons, Overall, not worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67b39f9d9a0fa81fd6d9e382b9752159",
"text": "\"The conclusion that \"\"it's bad to have 0% utilization\"\" from the data you linked is misleading. When people have zero history, they also have zero utilization. The fact that generally people with zero utilization are credit virgins is what drives that average score. Obviously, people with zero, or limited, history will have significantly lower credit scores than folks with some utilization and a lot of history. In response to the couple comments regarding the dip on attaining 0% utilization. The data shows a 67 point drop in average score from 0% to 1%-10%. The stark deviation in average score between those two groups is not the result of a couple point change because of zero utilization.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01f84dfb9ac0438003575fe35c16a1ed",
"text": "Well, it is a negative point of view, but nobody in the history of money has ever loaned money because they like you. I suppose you could paint it as an honest point of view. All money lending is for profit. If you have a high score, you are very likely to repay your loan because you are lower risk. We always hear lower risk... but the risk is that they won't make money off of you. I think that just like we buy previously owned vehicles cars instead of used cars, and we banks call them service fees instead of junk fees, our credit score discusses our credit worthiness instead of profitability But none of that means you can't benefit from it. It isn't a fear tactic, it is a way to judge each other. You probably pay interest and fees to keep it high, but that is price of lending. I think the questioner has a negative view of credit (which I suppose is fine and is their right, I will defend their right to an opinion) but the way we do and judge credit is neither evil or benevolent. I could certainly agree that more transparency would be good, but only for honest folks. If the credit bureaus made it public how they judged us, there would be a new industry for people who want to game the system. Update Since it always will cost to use credit, and using credit is the only way to prove your a low credit risk, it will therefore always cost money to raise your credit score. However the return on investment is exemplified in this question: a person with no credit was able to get a loan, but at serious out of pocket cost. Later, after establishing credit at a price of real money, he was able to secure a nearly identical loan for considerably less cost (in terms of interest paid) because he had proven himself worthy. When I say proven, I mean paid interest. There is nothing wrong with questioning the system, change only occurs when people question the status quo. And for sure our current system is not perfect, but like many employed systems while it is terrible but there is nothing better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0dd5767867e5eaa5e7a011d127afa5",
"text": "Has this already occurred, if not: why? What are the road blocks? I think it's just that the barriers to entry are rather high. Lenders would potentially be interested in a new score if it demonstrably saved them money (by more effectively weeding out risky borrowers), but because the FICO score already exists and they already know how to use it, there are costs and risks in making the transition, so lenders are unlikely to switch without solid evidence. But to get solid evidence, you would need to test out the new score and see how well it correlated with loan default and so forth. So there is a catch-22: no one will use the score until they know it works, but you can't know whether it works until people start using it. The existence of non-FICO credit scores (like VantageScore) shows that it is possible for alternatives to crop up. The question is just whether they have enough concrete advantages to overcome the track record and name recognition of FICO. Only time will tell. As for why an alternative score wouldn't be open source, you could ask the same about almost anything. Creating a measurably better score would likely take lots of time and money (to gather and analyze data both on characteristics of borrowers and on their record of debt payment). If someone is able to do that, they would probably rather do it secretly and then milk it for billions by selling the results of the secret for a long time without selling the secret itself, as FICO has done.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a05dfe3bfec8a8b33e261f14d14cdadb",
"text": "How bad would maxing out my credit card once a year affect my score is a related discussion. You shouldn't be using 20%, but rather keep the monthly statement below 20%. If the credit lines add to $5000, charging gas and paying in full each month will help your score (obviously, I assume you don't pay more than $1000/mo for gas). Letting the balance go unpaid month to month means you are paying interest. Probably 18% or more. This is bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71e65b915ad5bd6b5e9fba34bd64e114",
"text": "The whole point of a credit report and, by extension, a credit score, is to demonstrate (and judge) your ability to repay borrowed funds. Everything stems from that goal; available credit, payment history, collections, etc all serve to demonstrate whether or not you personally are a good investment for lenders to pursue. Revolving credit balances are tricky because they are more complicated than fixed loans (for the rest of this answer, I'll just talk about credit cards, though it also applies to lines of credit such as overdraft protection for checking accounts, HELOCs, and other such products). Having a large available balance relative to your income means that at any time you could suddenly drown yourself in debt. Having no credit cards means you don't have experience managing them (and personal finances are governed largely by behavior, meaning experience is invaluable). Having credit cards but carrying a high balance means you know how to borrow money, but not pay it back. Having credit cards but carrying no balance means you don't know how to borrow money (or you don't trust yourself to pay it back). Ideally, lenders will see a pattern of you borrowing a portion of the available credit, and then paying it down. Generally that means utilizing up to 30% of your available credit. Even if you maintain the balance in that range without paying it off completely, it at least shows that you have restraint, and are able to stop spending at a limit you personally set, rather than the limit the bank sets for you. So, to answer your question, 0% balance on your credit cards is bad because you might as well not have them. Use it, pay it off, rinse and repeat, and it will demonstrate your ability to exercise self control as well as your ability to repay your debts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58f282bc2b839fbc071dca805eaccf6c",
"text": "\"Read the terms carefully. With promotional offers, if you do anything \"\"bad\"\", the promotion is terminated and you immediately revert to either your normal rate or a penalty rate. \"\"Bad\"\" includes things like: making a late payment, going over your limit, paying less than the minimum payment, etc. I wouldn't sweat the potential credit score impacts. These promotions are pretty much the best deals that you can get for an unsecured loan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c04766bd3dd7726caf75ff1eeab53a63",
"text": "\"Your use of the term \"\"loan\"\" is confusing, what you're proposing is to open a new card and take advantage of the 0% APR by carrying a balance. The effects to your credit history / score will be the following:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0bd03783aee58b3f6f5ef4eb8fa4e86",
"text": "You don't need a credit score. After I paid off my house mortgage many years ago I had this discussion with my mortgage agent (now bank VP). Your credit score is not a measure your ability to repay. It is a behavioral model and a statistical measure of the likelihood that the banks will make money off of you when they give you a loan, and a marketing tool that the banking industry uses to sell you long term and short term debt (mortgages and credit cards). Statistically speaking, people who close out major loans change their behaviors, and the model captures this change in behavior. In my own case, even though I have a credit history and sufficient cash is the bank to buy my next home outright, I have no credit score . What the model says is that people with my behavioral profile are not likely to take a loan, and if they did take one, they would pay it back so quickly that the bank would not even recoup the cost of initiating the loan. In short, people with my profile are bad news for the loans side of the bank. Thanks @quid for suggesting I capture this and post it as an answer",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a20d9562e99742ffa112be51363bb7c9",
"text": "If I use my credit card on my ITIN and behave like a good guy (paying everything on time), will it create history for my SSN next year or will I have to start from scratch? Yes, you'll keep your history, it will be reported on your SSN when you update your creditors with it. I have an option of using a secured card v/s an unsecured one. Which one is better from the view of my credit history? The one which you don't have to pay for. Consider the value of money you're using for the secured card, and all the fees and interest you expect to pay. Unless you're planning on a mortgage in the next couple of years, there's no rush with the credit. It is definitely not worth paying money for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eeb983da9cfabadda4c0df8aeb8309d3",
"text": "I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? I have never heard that, however, the financial institutions (who are charging you an amount of interest which was at one time in the not so distant past classified and punishable in state criminal codes) really enjoy you thinking that way. You are clearly capable of doing the math yourself. While I don't know the exact numbers, I am totally confident that you will find in about 5 or 10 minutes (if that long) that eliminating debt of any kind in your life will pay an immediate return that beats the great majority of other investments in terms of risk/reward. After the immediate financial return, there is a quieter, subtler, and even greater long term benefit. Basic principle: Highest Rates First Perhaps this decision could be considered slightly less important than deciding not to smoke during your youth; but I would put it as a close second. You are already in a position where you can see the damage that your prior decisions (about financial debt) have produced. Run the clock back to the time in your life when you were debt free. Now, pay off that debt with the big check, and start from zero. Now, turn on your psychic powers and predict the same amount of time, in the future, with the same amount of money (don't even try to adjust for inflation; just use flat dollars) WITHOUT losing the money which you have given to the financial institutions during this previous part of your life. Do you now see why the financial institutions want you to think about slowly paying them off instead of waking up tomorrow without owing them anything ?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "757f07686cc03e3eb9ce39fad86bef4b",
"text": "\"The worth of a credit score (CS) is variable. If you buy your stuff outright with 100% down then your CS is worthless. If you take a loan to buy stuff then it is worth exactly what you save in interest versus a poor score. But there is also the \"\"access\"\" benefit of CS where loans will no longer be available to you, forcing you to rent. If you consider rent as money down teh tiolet then this could factor in. The formula for CS worth is different for everyone. Bill Gates CS is worth zero to him. Walking away from a mortage is not the same as walking away from a loan. A mortage has collateral. There are 2 objects: the money, and the house. If you walk away the bank gets the house as a fair trade. They keep all money you put against the house to boot! Sometimes the bank PROFITS when you walk away. So in a good market you could consider walking away to be the Moral Michael thing to do. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8143e59701da827051bb11538170aa2e",
"text": "Hi guys, have a question from my uni finance course but I’m unsure how to treat the initial loan (as a bond, or a bill or other, and what the face value of the loan is). I’ll post the question below, any help is appreciated. “Hi guys, I have a difficult university finance question that’s really been stressing me out.... “The amount borrowed is $300 million and the term of the debt credit facility is six years from today The facility requires minimum loan repayments of $9 million in each financial year except for the first year. The nominal rate for this form of debt is 5%. This intestest rate is compounded monthly and is fixed from the date the facility was initiated. Assume that a debt repayment of $10 million is payed on 31 August 2018 and $9million on April 30 2019. Following on monthly repayments of $9 million at the end of each month from May 31 2019 to June 30 2021. Given this information determine the outstanding value of the debt credit facility on the maturity date.” Can anyone help me out with the answer? I’ve been wracking my brain trying to decide if I treat it as a bond or a bill.” Thanks in advance,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "707710b1f52ebd3e174ecd48ca16ad0c",
"text": "\"I have never had a credit card and have been able to function perfectly well without one for 30 years. I borrowed money twice, once for a school loan that was countersigned, and once for my mortgage. In both cases my application was accepted. You only need to have \"\"good credit\"\" if you want to borrow money. Credit scores are usually only relevant for people with irregular income or a past history of delinquency. Assuming the debtor has no history of delinquency, the only thing the bank really cares about is the income level of the applicant. In the old days it could be difficult to rent a car without a credit car and this was the only major problem for me before about 2010. Usually I would have to make a cash deposit of $400 or something like that before a rental agency would rent me a car. This is no longer a problem and I never get asked for a deposit anymore to rent cars. Other than car rentals, I never had a problem not having a credit card.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9682391181e29e0ff28ebdd867c816e5",
"text": "Your credit rating will rise once the loan is repaid or paid regularly (in time). It will not get back to normal instantly. If the property is dead weight you may want to sell it so your credit score will increase in the medium term.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
358ccd45afeaf1f9bb8bc4789b143543
|
Insurance company sent me huge check instead of pharmacy. Now what?
|
[
{
"docid": "af1106a29d58d5538e4e2baea1dc30ea",
"text": "The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dbf908577422d9e9844958a62782629",
"text": "Checks are awesome things in that, even if it gets lost the money doesn't change hands until the check is cashed. I would highly recommend NOT signing a check over and putting it in the mail though. Essentially putting your signature on it is saying yes, pay to whomever. Theoretically acceptable, rarely a good idea. Call the insurance company and have them cancel current check to reissue to the correct people. Don't forget to write VOID (in huge letters) on the check before throwing away and/or tearing it up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c472e28a902255d7f3e8918550a37e7f",
"text": "Option 4: Go talk with someone in person at an office of the Insurance company. They have helped me several times with things like this. They can get everyone involved on a conference call and make something happen. But you have to go in. Calling is a good way to waste time and get nowhere, they will throw the issue back and forth. Find an office and go. This is the most effective solution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "608ef839a75b4a9d959fb21bd1c79110",
"text": "So: What you do:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec5f508e7f500cdad2d26fd1adf49a37",
"text": "Deposit check and send a personal check (resulting in tax and IRS reporting issues) That's a bad idea, unless maybe the check you're receiving is a certified bank draft. Suppose the insurance company are crooks and the check is fraudulent. It could take weeks or months for some investigation to catch up to that, long after your own personal check was cashed by the pharmacy. The bank will then put you on hook for the 20 grand by reversing the check, even though the funds had been deposited into your account. Do not put yourself into the position of a money handler; you don't have the cash base, insurance, government protection and whatever else that a bank has. And, of course, you're being a free money handler if you do that. (You're not even compensated for postage, time and whatnot). If you're handling money between two parties, you should collect a percentage, or else refuse. That percentage has to be in proportion to the risk, since cashing a check for someone carries a risk similar to (and is effectively a form of) making a loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "857974453afa724ad8ac67c7e3956c66",
"text": "In one of your comments you say: Even if the pharmacy is not in the insurance provider network? This is why you got the check instead of your insurance company. I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and recently my wife underwent a procedure in the hospital, where one of the physicians involved was not in my providers network. I got a letter from the physicians office stating that since they are out of network, the standard practice was for BCBS to issue the check to me, rather than to the provider. I received the check and made the payment. The main contention is the difference in price, and that is what you need to discuss with both the pharmacy (actual billing) and your insurance company (paid benefits).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2765e690af1f88102daa11d29be4a1f0",
"text": "You mentioned depositing the check and then sending a personal check. Be sure to account for time, since any deposit over $10,000 the money will be made available in increments, so it may take 10-14 days to get the full amount in your account before you could send a personal check. I would not recommend this option regardless, but if you do, just a heads up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d260f2a8ecc297314ac859d57166400",
"text": "\"This is not a mistake. This is done for \"\"Out of Network\"\" providers, and mainly when the patient is an Anthem member, be it Blue Shield or Blue Cross. Even though an \"\"Assignment of Benefits\"\" is completed by the patient, and all fields on the claim from (CMS1500 or UB04) are completed assigning the benefits to the provider, Anthem has placed in their policy that the Assignment of Benefits the patient signs is null and void. No other carrier that I have come across conducts business in this manner. Is it smart? Absolutely not! They have now consumed their member's time in trying to figure out which provider the check is actually for, the member now is responsible for forwarding the payment, or the patient spends the check thinking Anthem made a mistake on their monthly premium at some point (odds are slim) and is now in debt thousands of dollars because they don't check with Anthem. It creates a huge mess for providers, not only have we chased Anthem for payment, but now we have to chase the patient and 50% of the time, never see the payment in our office. It creates more phone calls to Anthem, but what do they care, they are paying pennies on the dollar for their representatives in the Philippines to read from a script. Anthem is the second largest insurance carrier in the US. Their profit was over 800 million dollars within 3 months. The way they see it, we issued payment, so stop calling us. It's amazing how they can accept a CMS1500, but not follow the guidelines associated with it. Your best bet, and what we suggest to patients, either deposit the check and write your a personal check or endorse and forward. I personally would deposit the check and write a personal check for tracking purposes; however, keep in mind that in the future, you may depend on your bank statements for proof of income (e.g. Social Security) and imagine the work having to explain, and prove, a $20,000 deposit and withdraw within the same month.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9b677bf9fd32eb6bc39174c40ce70a5b",
"text": "If the hospital is run like hospitals in the US it can take a long time just to determine the bill. The hospital, Emergency room, ER doctors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, X-Ray department, pharmacy and laboratory are considered separate billing centers. It can take a while to determine the charges for each section. Is there an insurance company involved? When there is one involved it can take weeks or months before the hospital determines what the individual owes. The co-pays, coverages, and limits can be very confusing. In my experience it can take a few months before the final amount is known. You may want to call the hospital to determine the status of the bills.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1203172087dc797dbf83340a004bf503",
"text": "\"check the DATE OF SERVICE on all your invoices carefully. It's possible you actually DID pay already. Sometimes when a medical provider gets \"\"mostly\"\" paid by a third party insurer, they just drop the (small) remainder, as it's more cost than it's worth if it is a trivial amount. Alternatively, they wait until you show up for another office visit, and \"\"ding\"\" you then!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed29c570eae7fb018586b19dfcde1b80",
"text": "\"This is really unfortunate. In general you can't back date individual policies. You could have (if it was available to you) elected to extend your employer's coverage via COBRA for the month of May, and possibly June depending on when your application was submitted, then let the individual coverage take over when it became effective. Groups have some latitude to retroactively cover and terminate employees but that's not an option in the world of individual coverage, the carriers are very strict about submission deadlines for specific effective dates. This is one of the very few ways that carriers are able to say \"\"no\"\" within the bounds of the ACA. You submit an application, you are assigned an effective date based on the date your application was received and subsequently approved. It has nothing to do with how much money you send them or whether or not you told them to back date your application. If someone at the New York exchange told you you could have a retroactive effective date they shouldn't have. Many providers have financial hardship programs. You should talk to the ER hospital and see what might be available to you. The insurer is likely out of the equation though if the dates of service occurred before your policy was effective. Regarding your 6th paragraph regarding having paid the premium. In this day and age carriers can only say \"\"no\"\" via administrative means. They set extremely rigid effective dates based on your application date. They will absolutely cancel you if you miss a payment. If you get money to them but it was after the grace period date (even by one minute) they will not reinstate you. If you're cancelled you must submit a new application which will create a new coverage gap. You pay a few hundred dollars each month to insure infinity risk, you absolutely have to cover your administrative bases because it's the only way a carrier can say \"\"no\"\" anymore so they cling to it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcc99ce53784564e60c8529112455a1e",
"text": "You seem overly fixated on dead tree documentation of purchases. They are deducting this from your account monthly - the mere fact that the money was taken is enough to prove in court that they have you on their books and to hold them to paying out said insurance. The email copies is actually a better way to organize receipts in most cases (can't be destroyed as easily, etc.) You can cancel the insurance - but don't just stop paying (you'd owe them money then). I foresee increasing difficulty navigating the 21st century for you unless you can get past this concern about physical receipts. I doubt other companies would do much better. FWIW, I live in the continental US. I don't know how different the Philippines is with regard to moving everything to digital",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbbeb5a0fef77fa10d779f442ce583e1",
"text": "You didn't buy it. Your mother did. You can try to cancel it if it was purchased in your name; if your mother purchased it she would have to cancel it. Either way, the company has done it's part by carrying you until that cancellation and you have no grounds for demanding a refund for time already covered. If your mother was spending your money, that is something you need to take up with her unless you want to bring charges against her for theft/fraud. If she was spending her own money, then you may want to talk to a lawyer about getting her declared incompetent so someone else can control her spending. But the money paid is probably gone. It isn't the insurance company's fault that you didn't want it doesn't, and if you don't bring charges you can't complain about their having accepted stolen money. Even if you do bring charges and win, it isn't clear you can get a refund. If you really want to pursue any of this, your next step is to talk to a lawyer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8db1c181bc68dc201970efb4f4b3abab",
"text": "\"There's nothing you can do. If he has indeed deposited the check, it would appear on your account fairly quickly - I've never seen it taking more than 2-3 business days. However, a check is a debt instrument, and you cannot close the account until it clears, or until the \"\"unclaimed property\"\" laws of your state kick in. If he claims that he deposited the check, ask it in writing and have your bank (or the bank where it was deposited) investigate why it takes so long to clear. If he's not willing to give it to you in writing - he's likely not deposited it. Whatever the reason may be, even just to cause you nuisance. Lesson learned. Next time - cashier's check with a signed receipt. Re closing the LLC: if you're the only two partners - you can just withdraw yourself from the LLC, take out your share, and drop it on him leaving him the only partner. Check with your local attorney for details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d300a37caab11c1aad8bb3eaca7d4f2",
"text": "It's an over crowded boat I'm sure. She hasn't had insurance all year either. She switched departments at the end of last year and they said she had to wait for open enrollment to come around again. So it wasn't by choice that she's been uninsured. It really baffles me that her company, a healthcare provider, would let their employees go through this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4158d595a69b938712cdfcd60768492",
"text": "No you do not insure the cheque. A cheque is just standardized form that instructs a bank to transfer money. It is no more important than an ordinary letter. A cheque carries no commercial value, especially when it has a designated recipient. No mail insurance will cover the financial loss as a result of bank fraud. It is a kind of indirect loss. Just tell her to write your account number at the back of the paper, walk into your bank's branch and tell the teller to deposit it. There is no need of mailing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28fbd6147331296e24091a48b5f615a7",
"text": "It is important to understand that when or before you received services from your medical provider(s), you almost certainly signed a document stating that you understand that you are fully responsible for the entire bill, even though the provider may be willing to bill the insurer on your behalf as a service. In almost all cases, this is the arrangement, so it is very unlikely that you will be able to dispute the validity of the bill, since you did receive the service and almost certainly agreed to be fully responsible for the payments. With regard to the discounts, your medical provides have likely contracted with your insurer to provide services at a certain price or discount level, so I would base all of your negotiations with the providers and/or the collectors on those amounts. They can't legitimately bill you for the full amount since you are insured by a company they have a contract with, and you are not self-pay/uninsured, and the fact that they haven't been paid by your insurer doesn't change that, because the discount likely depends on the contact they have with your insurer and not whether or not they are billed/paid by your insurer. Please note - this is a common arrangement, but I'd recommend that you verify this with your insurer. Unfortunately, payment in 90+ days is often typical by insurance standards, so it's not yet clear to me whether or not your insurer has broken any laws such as a Prompt Pay law, or violated the terms of your policy with them (read it!). However, you need to find out which claims rep/adjuster is handling your claims and follow up with them until the payments are made. It's not personal, so make this person's life miserable until it is done and call them so often that they know it's you by the caller ID. I would also recommend contacting the collector(s), and letting them know that you don't have the money and so will not be able to pay, provide them with copies of the EOBs that state that the insurance company plans to pay the providers, and then ignore their calls/letters until the payments are made. When they call, simply reiterate that you don't have the money and that your insurance company is in the process of paying the bills. You have to expect that you will be dealing with a low-paid employee that is following a script. You are just the next person on their robo-call list, and they are not going to understand that you don't have a pile of money laying around with which to pay them, even if you tell them repeatedly. Make sure that you at no point give them access to any of your financial accounts, such as a checking or savings account, or a debit card - they will access it and clean you out. It is likely that your insurance provider will pay the providers directly since they were likely billed by the providers originally. If the providers have sold the debt to the collectors (and are not just employing a collector for debt they still own), you may have to follow up with the providers as well and make sure that the collection activity stops, since the providers may also need to forward the payments to the collectors once they are paid by the insurance company. Of course, if the insurer refuses to pay the claims, at that point I would recommend meeting with a lawyer to seek to force them to pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2b853fe46b7cbb9694b08f72eb9668b",
"text": "What would happen if you was to cash a check, didn’t realize it was to you and your finance company, take it to a local business that has a money center, they cash the check without even having you sign let alone having the finance companies endorsement on it . The money cleared my account like a couple months ago and it was just brought up now .. ? The reason why the check was made out the owner and the lender is to make sure the repairs were done on the car. The lender wants to make sure that their investment is protected. For example: you get a six year loan on a new car. In the second year you get hit by another driver. The damage estimate is $1,000, and you decide it doesn't look that bad, so you decide to skip the repair and spend the money on paying off debts. What you don't know is that if they had done the repair they would have found hidden damage and the repair would have cost $3,000 and would have been covered by the other persons insurance. Jump ahead 2 years, the rust from the skipped repair causes other issues. Now it will cost $5,000 to fix. The insurance won't cover it, and now a car with an outstanding loan balance of $4,000 and a value of $10,000 if the damage didn't exist needs $5,000 to fix. The lender wants the repairs done. They would have not signed the check before seeing the proof the repairs were done to their satisfaction. But because the check was cashed without their involvement they will be looking for a detailed receipt showing that all the work was done. They may require that the repair be done at a certified repair shop with manufacturer parts. If you don't have a detailed bill ask the repair shop for a copy of the original one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbd9dfe952f74b25dbcfbe52b673e532",
"text": "\"A day or so later I get an email from the mattress company where the rep informs me that they will need to issue me a paper check for the full amount and that I would have to contact Affirm to stop charging me. To which I rapidly answered \"\"Please confirm that with Affirm prior to mailing anything out. On my end the loan was cancelled.\"\" To which the rep replied \"\"confirmed. It has been cancelled.\"\" I think your communication could have been more explicit mentioning that not only was the loan cancelled, you got your initial payments. You have not paid for the mattress. The refund if any should go to Affirm. The Rep has only confirmed that loan has been cancelled. at what point, if any, am i free to use this money? I was planning to just let it sit there until the shoe drops and just returning. But for how long is too long? Sooner or later the error would get realized and you would have to pay this back.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d2fefa7b803c708ff1d023b7780e877",
"text": "\"•Have you had any problems with bills not being paid? NO •If you had issues, were they addressed satisfactorily? Answer: A big issue that blindsided me: With my bank, the funds come out of my account right away, but the actual payment is done through a third-party service. On my bank's online site it appears that the payment has been made, but that does not necessarily mean that the intended recipient has cashed it. Looking online at my credit union's site is useless, because all I can tell is that the payment has been sent. The only way to verify payment is to contact the intended recipient. Or I may telephone the online bill pay representative at my bank/credit union, who has access to the third party service. If I do nothing, after 90 days, the check is void, at which time the third party service notifies the bank/credit union and the funds will eventually end up back in my account. I learned this today, after a third-party paper check to a health care provider was returned to me via mail by the recipient (because insurance had already paid and I did not owe them anything). The money was in the hands of the third-party service, not in my account, nor that of my credit union nor the recipient. At first my credit union told me that I would have to contact the third-party service myself and work it out. I said \"\"NO WAY\"\" and the credit union did get the money back into account the same day. This is a sweet deal for the third party, who has my money interest-free anywhere from a few days to three months. And risk-free as well, because the money goes directly from my account to the third party service.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc7a6be9b8252d019482eb7a6c261482",
"text": "Look up escheatment. Companies that have unclaimed property are supposed to send it to your State government. They should have a unclaimed property department of some sort. In short, the company is going to have to pay either you, or your State (In Your Name) so they have to pay it either way. It would be easier for them to just give you new check. Expect them to give you some grief in verifying it has not been cashed and such... but if you have the original, in hand, it shouldn't be too bad. A 'Lost' check may be harder to get replaced. Not a lawyer, don't want to be.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "983d2b5de6ce0fa254f27f73d368e1d6",
"text": "No, I felt that's what aweraw was trying to say, but they were not doing a good job of it so I took a crack at it from my point of view. I see where you are coming from too. Really, I suspect if we all sat down and had to write a unified view of the role luck plays in our lives we would be surprised how much we agree. :)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3de550d0846a6b23e01d679166f56c40
|
Would it make sense to take a loan from a relative to pay off student loans?
|
[
{
"docid": "005db9a6ec7f3421984f8cbc462239c8",
"text": "\"My biggest concern with this plan is that there's no going back should you decide that it is not going to work, either due to the strain on the relationship or for some other reason. If you were borrowing from a relative in place of a mortgage or a car loan, you can always refinance, and might just pay a little more interest or closing costs from a bank. Student loans are effectively unsecured, so your only option for a \"\"refinance\"\" would be to get a personal, unsecured loan (or borrow against existing collateral if you have it). You are going to have a tough time getting another 50k unsecured personal loan at anywhere near student-loan rates. The other negative aspects (overall risk of borrowing from family, loss of possible tax deduction) make this plan a no-go for me. (I'm NOT saying that it's always a good idea to borrow from family for homes or cars, only that there's at least an exit plan should you both decide it was a bad idea).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec55ffc0afb013f63119e61c57879329",
"text": "\"Personally, I avoid making business deals with friends and relatives. There's just too much of a possibility that things can go wrong. Let's assume that you're honest people and you have no intention of cheating your mother-in-law. Still, all sorts of things could happen that could make it difficult for you to repay the loan. You could lose your job. You could get some big medical expense. Etc. Then what happens? Then your financial problems become family problems. There's a strong temptation when people borrow from relatives to make paying the loan the lowest priority in their budget. \"\"I know I promised to pay \\$X per month, but things are really tight right now and Mom should understand.\"\" Maybe she does understand and can manage without it. But maybe not. And then it becomes a family fight. \"\"You promised you'd pay it back.\"\" \"\"And we will, we're having a hard time right now. Can't you just give us a break?\"\" Etc. Or she might have some extra expense, and say, \"\"Hey, can't you pay a little more this month? I really need some extra cash.\"\" \"\"I'm sorry, we're struggling just to make the regular payments, we can't.\"\" \"\"Well I was willing to loan you all this money. The least you could do is pay me back when I need it.\"\" Etc. You can end up ruining family relationships over money. Your wife can find herself in the position of having to choose whether to side with her mother or her husband. Etc. I'm sure plenty of people do things like this and it works out just great. But there are big risks. And by the way, apparently this was your idea, not your mother-in-laws. I wonder what her reaction is. Is she eager to help out her daughter and son-in-law and had nothing in particular to do with the money anyway? Or is she feeling very imposed on? It's one thing to ask relatives to let you borrow their car for the weekend. Asking someone to loan you $50,000 is a very big request. If one of my kids asked me to loan them $50,000 from my retirement fund, I'd consider that a very presumptuous request. (Unless they needed the money for life-saving surgery for my grandchild or some such.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f62e1d6e5427c04a8259add514d801be",
"text": "I struggle to see the value to this risk from the standpoint of your mother-in-law. This is not a small amount of money for a single person to lend to a single person ignoring your personal relationship. Right now, using a blended rate of about 8% and a 5 year payment period, your cost on that $50,000 is somewhere in the neighborhood of $11,000 with a monthly payment around $1,014. Using the same monthly payment but paying your MIL at 5% you'll complete the loan about 3.5 months sooner and save about $5,000, she will make about $6,000 in interest over 5 years against a $50,000 outlay. Alternatively, you can just prioritize payments to the more expensive loans. It's difficult to work out a total cost comparison without your expected payoff timelines and amount(s) you're currently paying toward all the loans. I'm sure a couple hours with a couple of spreadsheets could yield a plan that would net you a savings substantially close to the $5,000 you'd save by risking your mother in law's money. A lot of people think personal lending risk is about the relationship between the people involved, but there's more to it than that. It's not about you and your wife separating, it's not about the awkward dinner and conversations if you lose your job. Something might physically happen to you, you could become disabled or die. Right now, that's an extremely diversified and calculated risk taken by a gigantic lender. Unless your mother in law is very wealthy, this is not nearly enough reward to assume this sort of risk (in my opinion). Her risk FAR outpaces your potential five year savings. IF you wanted to pursue this as a means of paying interest to a family member rather than the bank, I'd only borrow an amount I budgeted and intended to pay within this single year. Say $10,000 against the highest interest loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "719361dd7da029956d981498d9b0fa43",
"text": "I will start with the assumption that you will never have any late payments and will fully pay off the loan. This may be a big assumption, but if you can't assume that, then you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. The answer depends on your income: You should calculate how much student loan interest you can deduct before and after the switch, and adjust the interest rate accordingly to compensate for any difference.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6e78d648403a607c83fb538ac0fd1d7",
"text": "I have recently been the lender to a couple people. It was substantially less money (~$3k), but I was trusting their good faith to pay me back. As a lender, I will never do it again. Reasons, Overall, not worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caf5a078744cc54a81030ae60317e94b",
"text": "\"Would it make sense to take a loan from a relative... Other people have pointed this out, but honestly, I'd be very reluctant to answer \"\"yes\"\" to this no matter how you completed that sentence. There's always an intangible risk to mixing money and relationships. There's a lot that can go wrong during the duration of the loan, and if it does, the consequences could be a lot greater than just a bad credit score.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec0dddc2268c033816cb2cfd2c347cbb",
"text": "The interest that you are proposing to pay your MIL is actually quite low compared to even extremely conservative investing which easily earns 7% or more with quantifiable low risk. You claim that it would be no risk, but what would happen if you lost your job? The risk she faces is more or less exactly what a bank would experience while giving the loan, or in other words it is pretty much whatever your credit score says. Even worse, she does not have a large pool of investments to distribute this risk like a bank would. Making loans this large in a family situation is a recipe for disaster. Taking a huge risk with the relationship your wife has with her mother over three points of interest is exceptionally unwise. Are these private or federal student loans? Federal student loan debt is some of the safest to carry due to its income based repayment plans and eventual loan forgiveness after 25 years. Have you investigated income based repayment options?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3f7daeb76a5bac2d245bcac8cf109e91",
"text": "Every time I have loaned money to family members I have never gotten the money back. If they can't make the down payment, they should not be taking out the loan. It's a bad idea to loan money to friends, because when they can't pay you back (which might be forever) they avoid you. So, you lose both your money and your friends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a3ebfa6c633c4958363319222831edb",
"text": "\"Consider the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of the extra repayment on a 15 year loan. If you owe money at 30% p.a. and money at 4% p.a. then it is a no brainer that the 30% loan gets paid down first. Consider too that if the mortgage is not tax deductable and you pay income tax, that you do not pay tax on money you \"\"save\"\". (i.e. in the extreme $1 saved is $2 earned). Forward thinking is key, if you are paying for someone's college now, then you would want to pay out of an education plan for which contributions are tax deductable, money in, money out. In my country most mortgages, be they 15,25,30 years tend to last 6-8 years for the lender. People move or flip or re-finance. I would take the 15 for the interest rate but only if I could sustain the payments without hardship. Maybe a more modest home ? If you cannot afford the higher repayments you are probably sailing a bit close to the wind anyway. Another thing to consider is that tax benefits can be altered with the stroke of a pen, but you may still have to meet repayments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ca37ccaeb56e7276aa66a6183d66820",
"text": "\"I really don't feel co-signing this loan is in the best interests of either of us. Lets talk about the amount of money you need and perhaps I can assist you in another way. I would be honest and tell them it isn't a good deal for anybody, especially not me. I would then offer an alternative \"\"loan\"\" of some amount of money to help them get financing on their own. The key here is the \"\"loan\"\" I offer is really a gift and should it ever be returned I would be floored and overjoyed. I wouldn't give more than I can afford to not have. Part of why I'd be honest to spread the good word about responsible money handling. Co-signed loans (and many loans themselves) probably aren't good financial policy if not a life & death or emergency situation. If they get mad at me it won't matter too much because they are family and that won't change.\"",
"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": "d1bddb921a5215528c109be80cf7c46b",
"text": "Timo's concern may be accurate, but talking to the bank is the next step. If I am the banker, I'm happier that (a) there's 25% down, and (b) it's not an additional loan as some might get from a parent. It's not that your parents have a lien for the 25% as a lender would, the structure is ownership, they own 25%. An important, if not obvious, distinction. Timo is right that as an asset of the parents, the ownership stake is at risk if their finances run into issues. Other than that, so long as all is done above board, your proposal can work. The bank will want your parents to sign the note of course, you can't mortgage property you don't fully own.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c7c7fc1cb06ec373f996b7a2740bf69",
"text": "\"You should pay for grad school without taking loans if your circumstances permit. There is the possibility of a tax write off for interest paid on student loans, but it's slightly complicated and it's very much a \"\"give me $10, and I'll give you $5 back\"\" kind of deal. You're better off not borrowing the money to begin with, even though I tend to think that borrowing for things which appreciate-- e.g., a house-- or which can significantly increase your earning capability-- e.g., the right kind of graduate school-- is generally better/wiser/more permissible than borrowing for something which depreciates, like a car. Having no student loan debt after graduation means you have greater freedom than someone who is laboring to pay student loan debt in addition to all of their other bills. My $0.02\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18f63457e8334538d77a5766629da7ed",
"text": "If this isn't a case where you would be willing to forgive the debt if they can't pay, it's a business transaction, not a friend transaction. Establish exactly what the interest rate will be, what the term of the loan is, whether periodic payments are required, how much is covered by those payments vs. being due at the end of the term as a balloon payment, whether they can make additional payments to reduce the principal early... Get it all in writing and signed by all concerned before any money changes hands. Consider having a lawyer review the language before signing. If the loan is large enough that it might incur gift taxes, then you may want to go the extra distance to make it a real, properly documented, intra-family loan. To do this you must charge (of at least pay taxes on) at least a certain minimal interest rate, and they have to make regular payments (or you can gift them the payments but you still won't up paying tax on the interest income). In this case you definitely want a lawyer to draw up the papers, I think. There are services on the web Antioch specialize in helping to set this up properly, and which offer services such as bookkeeping and monthly billing (aT extra cost) to make it less hassle for the lender. If the loan will be structured as a mortgage on the borrower's house -- making the interest deductible for the borrower in the US -- there are additional forms that need to be filled. The services can help with that too, for appropriate fees. Again, this probably wants experts writing the agreement, to make sure it's properly written for where you and the borrower live. Caveat: all the above is assuming USA. Rules may be very different elsewhere. I've done a formal intractability mortgage -- mostly to avoid gift tax -- and it wasn't too awful a hassle. Your mileage will vary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04e74a4f44ed1e8e97ae3bfd5f3b6892",
"text": "\"Let's summarize your relative's problem: How is this possible? If both of those statements are true, then he should be able to explain exactly why those statements are true, and then you can explain it to us, and then we can all nod our heads and admit, \"\"Wow, that makes sense. Proceed if you want to.\"\" But until that happens I suggest you take the advice I offered in the first paragraph of this answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea7fdaf01a430e0832d8219c9145cfec",
"text": "\"It's viable for you, but the \"\"investor\"\" is either stupid or willing and able to write off the investment as a gift for a friend in need, knowing it will probably end the friendship. The banks make their money off of indebtedness, with the highest returns being on the highest risk loans . If the bank isn't willing to give you that debt on your own, it's because they already know it's a bad debt. In this case, trust the banks. If you can't come up with the downpayment on your own, you won't be able to meet your other commitments on this contract.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8be4b8c3196627390ff6bf2365f30916",
"text": "\"My thoughts on loaning money to friends or family are outlined pretty extensively here, but cosigning on a loan is a different matter. It is almost never a good idea to do this (I say \"\"almost\"\" only because I dislike absolutes). Here are the reasons why: Now, all that said, if my sister or parents were dying of cancer and cosigning a loan was the only way to cure them, I might consider cosigning on a loan with them, if that was the only option. But, I would bet that 99.9% of such cases are not so dire, and your would-be co-borrower will survive with out the co-signing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "512d7c4e1f8831007a9b824440f78073",
"text": "Only if (or to put it even more bluntly, when) they default. If your friend / brother / daughter / whoever needs a cosigner on a loan, it means that people whose job it is to figure out whether or not that loan is a good idea have decided that it isn't. By co-signing, you're saying that you think you know better than the professionals. If / when the borrower defaults, the lender won't pursue them for the loan if you can pay it. You're just as responsible for the loan payments as the original borrower, and given that you were a useful co-signer, probably much more likely to be able to come up with the money. The lender has no reason to go after the original borrower, and won't. If you can't pay, the lender comes after both of you. To put it another way: Don't think of cosigning as helping them get a loan. Think of it as taking out a loan and re-loaning it to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "419ad6232fd4f86fa4f9ae3da5226128",
"text": "\"In some cases, it might be rational to pay low-interest debt first, because the consequences of defaulting on that debt are worse. Consider this simplified example. Suppose you have two debts: a low-interest mortgage, secured by your house, and a high-interest unsecured credit card debt, both of which are within a few years of being paid off. There is a chance that sometime between now and then, something will happen to disrupt your income (e.g. medical problems), and it won't be possible to make the payments on either loan. Defaulting on the credit card loan will result in a lower credit score and calls from collection agencies. Defaulting on the mortgage will result in the foreclosure or forced sale of your house, at best forcing you to move, and at worst leaving you homeless, at a time when you are also facing other (e.g. medical) problems. So you might rationally judge that losing your house is much worse than bad credit. Therefore, you might rationally conclude that it would be better to direct extra income toward paying down the mortgage, to increase the chances that, if and when an income disruption might occur, the mortgage would already be paid off. In other words, you shorten the window of time where income disruption results in foreclosure. You might decide that this increased security is worth the extra interest you will pay, compared to the strategy where you pay the high-interest loan first. This is a fairly special situation, but you asked \"\"Why might it be a good idea to do this?\"\", and I am just giving an example where it could rationally be considered a good idea. (Of course, in a real-life version of this example, there might be other options available, such as refinancing the mortgage. If you like, you could imagine a more extreme example where the lower-interest debt is owed to Joey Knuckles the loanshark, who will come and break your kneecaps if you miss a payment.)\"",
"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": "4dba527ceeb1a824675dbc76b6a6cc12",
"text": "\"Let me run some simplistic numbers, ignoring inflation. You have the opportunity to borrow up to 51K. What matters (and varies) is your postgraduation salary. Case 1 - you make 22K after graduation. You pay back 90 a year for 30 years, paying off at most 2700 of the loan. In this case, whether you borrow 2,800 or 28,000 makes no difference to the paying-off. You would do best to borrow as much as you possibly can, treating it as a grant. Case 2 - you make 100K after graduation. You pay back over 7K a year. If you borrowed the full 51, after 7 or 8 years it would be paid off (yeah, yeah, inflation, interest, but maybe that might make it 9 years.) In this case, the more you borrow the more you have to pay back, but you can easily pay it back, so you don't care. Invest your sponsorships and savings into something long term since you know you won't be needing to draw on them. Case 3 - you make 30K after graduation. Here, the payments you have to make actually impact how much disposable income you have. You pay back 810 a year, and over 30 years that's about 25K of principal. It will be less if you account for some (even most) of the payment going to interest, not principal. Anything you borrow above 25K (or the lower, more accurate amount) is \"\"free\"\". If you borrow substantially less than that (by using your sponsorship, savings, and summer job) you may be able to stop paying sooner than 30 years. But even if you borrow only 12K (or half the more accurate number), it will still be 15 years of payments. Running slightly more realistic versions of these calculations where your salary goes up, and you take interest into account, I think you will discover, for each possible salary path, a number that represents how much of your loan is really loan: everything above that is actually a grant you do not pay back. The less you are likely to make, the more of it is really grant. On top of that, it seems to me that no matter the loan/grant ratio, \"\"borrow as much as you can from this rather bizarre source\"\" appears to be the correct answer. In the cases where it's all loan, you have a lot of income and don't care much about this loan payment. Borrowing the whole 51K lets you invest all the money you get while you're a student, and you can use the returns on those investments to make the loan payments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87c67815a720af85f70f07a3783f1f6d",
"text": "Paying off your student loan is an investment, and a completely risk-free one. Every payment of your loan is a purchase of debt at the interest rate of the loan. It would be extremely unusual to be able to find a CD, bond or other low-risk play at a better rate. Any investment in a risky asset such as stocks is just leveraging up your personal balance sheet, which is strictly a personal decision based on your risk appetite, but would nearly universally be regarded as a mistake by a financial advisor. (The only exception I can think of here would be taking out a home mortgage, and even that would be debatable.) Unless your loan interest rate is in the range of corporate or government bonds -- and I'm sure it isn't -- don't think twice about paying them off with any free cash you have.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eeb64b4ec6c854e6c8e510a9d96f63b9
|
Can I buy a new house before selling my current house?
|
[
{
"docid": "a5d1d152614dde74cea6e8431471e43b",
"text": "\"You can make a contingent offer: \"\"I will buy this house if I sell my own.\"\" In a highly competitive environment, contingent offers tend to be ignored. (Another commentator described such a contingency clause as synonymous with \"\"Please Reject Me\"\".) You can get a bridge loan: you borrow money for a short term, at punishingly high interest. If your house doesn't sell, you're fscked. You pay for two mortgages (or even buy the other house for cash). If you can afford this, congratulations on, you know, being super-rich. Or you can do what I am doing: selling one house and then living at my mom's until I buy another one. (You will have to stay at your own mom's house; my mom's house will be full, of course.) Edit: A commentator with the disturbingly Kafkaesque name of \"\"R.\"\" made the not-unreasonable suggestion that you buy both and rent out one or the other. Consider this possibility, but remember: On the other hand, if the stars align, you might not want to extricate yourself. If the tenant is paying the mortgage and a little more, you have an appreciating asset, and one you can borrow against. With a little work and a little judicious use of leverage, doing this over and over, you can accumulate a string of income-producing rental properties.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "540f7bc42f160cb712f2a75dbd0dd4ee",
"text": "The two most common scenarios are: Since you have more control of timing when you are the buyer compared to when you are the seller, #1 is probably more common, however, a good real estate attorney should be able to walk you through your options should #2 come up. Fortunately, many real estate attorneys do not charge you anything until the sale completes, and you will likely get a discount if you involve them in both the sale and purchase, so I would start by finding an attorney.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60a8bb887508c315f7ed152a2ca94981",
"text": "A bridge loan (or bridging loan) is designed for exactly this circumstance. They're short-term loans (6 months is common) designed to help home-buyers to bridge the gap between buying and selling. MoneySupermarket defines them like this: Bridging loans are designed to help people complete the purchase of a property before selling their existing home by offering them short-term access to money at a high-rate of interest. As well as helping home-movers when there is a gap between the sale and completion dates in a chain, this type of loan can also help someone planning to sell-on quickly after renovating a home, or help someone buying at auction. Interest rates are very high, and there are likely to be fees, because you'll only need the loan for a short period. Here are some links to Canadian websites that explain more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "042b242265023ff11bf09c68b010334d",
"text": "If you can qualify for two mortgages, this is certainly possible. For this you can talk to a banker. However, most people do not qualify for two mortgages so they go a different route. They make offers on a new home with a contingency to sell the existing home. A good Realtor will walk you through this and any possible side effects. Keep in mind that the more contingencies in an offer the less attractive that offer is to sellers. This is how cash buyers can get a better deal (no contingencies and a very fast close). Given the hotness of your market a seller might reject your offer as opposed to first time home buyer that does not need to sell an old home. On the other hand, they may see your contingency as low risk as the market is so hot. This is why you probably need a really good agent. They can frame the contingency in a very positive light.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a9a85134e2efec3d92f6f364cd2ee12",
"text": "There's also the option to put most of your stuff into storage and rent an apartment or go to an extended stay hotel. Some apartments have month-by-month options at a higher rate, though you may need to ask around. I've known some people to use this as their primary plan because it was easier for them to keep the house clean and ready to show when it's empty. Basically, this option is to sell your current house then buy the new house with a (hopefully fairly short) transition time in the middle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "518cb6ee8a76cbf5dcdd784be6dc8bc5",
"text": "As the other answers suggest, there are a number of ways of going about it and the correct one will be dependent on your situation (amount of equity in your current house, cashflow primarily, amount of time between purchase and sale). If you have a fair amount of equity (for example, $50K mortgage remaining on a house valued at $300K), I'll propose an option that's similar to bridge financing: Place an offer on your new house. Use some of your equity as part of the down payment (eg, $130K). Use some more of your equity as a cash buffer to allow you pay two mortgages in between the purchase and the sale (eg, $30K). The way this would be executed is that your existing mortgage would be discharged and replaced with larger mortgage. The proceeds of that mortgage would be split between the down payment and cash as you desire. Between the closing of your purchase and the closing of your sale, you'll be paying two mortgages and you'll be responsible for two properties. Not fun, but your cash buffer is there to sustain you through this. When the sale of your new home closes, you'll be breaking the mortgage on that house. When you get the proceeds of the sale, it would be a good time to use any lump sum/prepayment privileges you have on the mortgage of the new house. You'll be paying legal fees for each transaction and penalties for each mortgage you break. However, the interest rates will be lower than bridge financing. For this reason, this approach will likely be cheaper than bridge financing only if the time between the closing of the two deals is fairly long (eg, at least 6 months), and the penalties for breaking mortgages are reasonable (eg, 3 months interest). You would need the help of a good mortgage broker and a good lawyer, but you would also have to do your own due diligence - remember that brokers receive a commission for each mortgage they sell. If you won't have any problems selling your current house quickly, bridge financing is likely a better deal. If you need to hold on to it for a while because you need to fix things up or it will be harder to sell, you can consider this approach.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "072657906959afacef76be19931af359",
"text": "If you're living in a market where some houses are going for $150K over asking, then you MUST buy before you sell. In a seller's market, you will get multiple offers on your current house when you decide to sell, it will sell for (well) over asking, and you can dictate possession dates. You do not need to worry about selling your own home, if you have a competent realtor. But buying a home is an entirely different story. You may struggle to find something affordable, and there may be multiple buyers each time you decide to make an offer. You may go through this cycle several times over many months before your offer is accepted. You should do this while living in your own home, with the comfort of knowing that you can sell your own home easily at any time, instead of the stress of an imminent closing date on your own home. Or worse, move into rented space or Malvolio's mom's house for months or a year while the market increases by 15% and the houses in your old area are now selling for $100K more than you sold for. Ouch, now you really can't afford to buy what you want, and you may end up buying something equivalent to what you used to own, for more, plus legal, realtor, and land transfer costs. If the closing dates don't align, then bridge. This will only end up costing a few hundred dollars, less than $1K including legal fees (the lawyer will also charge to handle this). But by buying before you sell, you'll easily make up that difference. This advice only applies to hot property markets. I'm not a realtor, just a guy living in the GTA who went through this process last year. Lost out on three offers over 10 months, then bought for asking price on fourth offer (very fortunate), then sold for $90K over asking, then bridged for 2 months. My realtor is awesome and made the process as stress free as it can be. Get a good realtor, start house hunting while preparing your own house for sale, and enjoy the process. Also you should negotiate with your realtor, they may be willing to reduce their commission on your sale if they are also representing you on the purchase. Good luck! P.S. Do not make a contingent offer, and do not accept one. Get your financing in place before you make an offer, and if you are concerned about inspection, you can also do that before the offer, if you act quickly. The inspection will cost ~$500, but it will increase the value of your offer by much more than that since you will be going in without conditions. I spent ~$1,000 on two property inspections on homes I lost out on, and I don't regret it. That is the cost of doing business. The other offers on the home I eventually bought were for significantly more than my offer, but they had conditions. I saved at least $40K by being condition free, and I only spent $1,500 on three property inspections. And, some people will just drop out of the multiple offer scenario when they learn that one of the buyers has done an inspection.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7758c3023162cce1343902f8f79088b2",
"text": "You don't say why you want to move. Without knowing that, it is hard to recommend a course of action. Anyway... The sequence of events for an ECONOMICAL outcome in a strong market is as follows: (1) You begin looking for a new house (2) You rent storage and put large items into storage (3) You rent an apartment and move into the apartment (4) The house now being empty you can easily do any major cleaning and renovations needed to sell it (5) You sell the house (and keep looking for a new house while you do so). Since the house is empty it will sell a lot more easily than if you are in it. (6) You invest the money you get from selling the house (7) You liquidate your investment and buy the new house that you find. If you are lucky, the market will have declined in the meantime and you will get a good deal on the new house in addition to the money you made on your investment. (8) You move your stuff out of storage into the new house. There are other possibilities that involve losing a lot of money. The sequence of events above will make money for you, possibly a LOT of money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d29769d517e99e0482e50bf6f7b4db8",
"text": "I sold my house and had been in the market looking for a replacement house for over 6 months after I sold it. I found someone willing to give me a short term, 3 month lease, with a month to month after that, at an equitable rate, as renters were scarcer than buyers.By the time I found a house, there were bidding wars as surplus had declined (can be caused seasonally), and it was quite difficult to get my new house. However, appraisers help this to a degree because whatever the seller wants, is not necessarily what they get, even if you offer it. I offered $10k over asking just to get picked out of the large group bidding on the house. Once the appraisal came in at $10k below my offer, I was able to buy the house at what I expected. Of course I had to be prepared if it came in higher, but I did my homework and knew pretty much what the house was worth. The mortgage is the same as the lease I had, the house is only 10 years' old and has a 1 year warranty on large items that could go wrong. In the 3 months I've been in the house, I have gained nearly $8k in equity....and will have a tax writeoff of about $19,000 off an income off a salary of $72,000, giving me taxable income of $53,000... making by tax liability go down about $4600. If I am claiming 0 dependents I will get back about $5,000 this year versus breaking even.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7e7de3d7eb3ed082e34779b92a3595cd",
"text": "I would just do a loan for a different number of years on your new mortgage. For example, if you just spent 10 years paying off your first house, then for your second, close the first mortgage upon selling, and then open a 20 or 25 year mortgage and the loan end date as well as the payment should remain similar. This would be more do-able if you paid ahead a little to compensate all the early on interest you have to eat. So if you want to finish around the same time, you could look into doing that since you'll have more equity to make a stronger down payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca9cdf23b1db6fb5ca4fee410435c107",
"text": "First of all, congratulations on your home purchase. The more equity you build in your house, the more of the sale price you get out of it when you move to your next house. This will enable you to consume more house in the future. Think of it as making early payments towards your next down payment. Another option is to save up a chunk of money and recast your mortgage, paying down the principal and having the resulting amount re-amortized to provide you with a lower monthly payment. You may be able to do this at least once during your time in the house, and if you do it early enough it can potentially help your savings in other areas. On the other hand, it is possible given today's low interest rates for mortgages that in other forms of investments (such as index funds) you could make more on the money you'd be putting towards your extra payments. Then you would have more money in savings when you go to sell this house and buy the next one that you would in equity if you didn't go that route. This is riskier than building equity in your home, but potentially has a bigger pay-off. You do the trade-offs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17b2928bee6da11bfcbf89b118b27938",
"text": "I'll compare it to a situation that is different, but will involve the same cash flow. Imagine the buyer agrees that you buy only 70% of the house right now, and the remaining 30% in 7 years time. It would be obviously fair to pay 70% of today's value today, pay 30% of a reasonable rent for 7 years (because 30% of the house isn't owned by you), then pay 30% of the value that the house has in 7 years time. 30% of the value in 7 years is the same as 30% of the value today, plus 30% of whatever the house gained in value. Instead you pay 70% of today's value, you pay no rent for the 30% that you don't own, then in 7 years time you pay 30% of today's value, plus 50% of whatever the house gained in value. So you are basically exchanging 30% of seven years rent, plus interest, for 20% of the gain in value over 7 years. Which might be zero. Or might be very little. Or a lot, in which case you are still better off. Obviously you need to set up a bullet proof contract. A lawyer will also tell you what to put into the contract in case the house burns down and can't be rebuilt, or you add an extension to the home which increases the value. And keep in mind that this is a good deal if the house doesn't increase in value, but if the house increases in value a lot, you benefit anyway. A paradoxical situation, where the worse the deal turns out to be after 7 years, the better the result for you. In addition, the relative carries the risk of non-payment, which the bank obviously is not willing to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a1d91bc6d5291d5aba1cd395504dfff",
"text": "What do you see as the advantage of doing this? When you buy a house with a mortgage, the bank gets a lien on the house you are buying, i.e. the house you are buying is the collateral. Why would you need additional or different collateral? As to using the house for your down payment, that would require giving the house to the seller, or selling the house and giving the money to the seller. If the house was 100% yours and you don't have any use for it once you buy the second house, that would be a sensible plan. Indeed that's what most people do when they buy a new house: sell the old one and use the money as down payment on the new one. But in this case, what would happen to the co-owner? Are they going to move to the new house with you? The only viable scenario I see here is that you could get a home equity loan on the first house, and then use that money as the down payment on the second house, and thus perhaps avoid having to pay for mortgage insurance. As DanielAnderson says, the bank would probably require the signature of the co-owner in such a case. If you defaulted on the loan, the bank could then seize the house, sell it, and give the co-owner some share of the money. I sincerely doubt the bank would be interested in an arrangement where if you default, they get half interest in the house but are not allowed to sell it without the co-owner's consent. What would a bank do with half a house? Maybe, possibly they could rent it out, but most banks are not in the rental business. So if you defaulted, the co-owner would get kicked out of the house. I don't know who this co-owner is. Sounds like you'd be putting them in a very awkward position.",
"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": "59962070028d867ee4b2d9d919702dd7",
"text": "Shop lots of houses. Find at least three you want and start by offering a low price and working your way up. Your risk is that houses you would have liked get bought by someone else while you are negotiating, that is how you discover how much you actually have to pay to get a house. Brokers only get paid if a deal closes. That is their incentive to get you a better price. If they know you will buy a different house unless the one they are selling gets your business, then they will work to make that happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12b48d3715194753802ef8cc74fc3d4d",
"text": "\"Unless you are investing an insignificant amount of money for the home and renovations, you need title insurance. Without it multiple other parties can claim ownership in this property you are purchasing and investing in. Also you can know if there are any liens against the property which can cost you a significant amount in addition to the costs you are budgeting. For example liens against a property I bought a while back amounted to 26% of the price I paid. In my case the seller (a bank) paid those, while in your case you may need to pay any liens as I suspect the seller has little money. That \"\"bone\"\" in your body that has you worried about this transaction is really good. Pay attention to it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea86135aefc19f735f834aa9cfa4eac0",
"text": "\"Pre-edit, Pete mentioned that he feels real estate agents would (a) like you to buy as much house as you afford, and (b) would love to show you three houses and have you choose one. As a real estate agent myself, I believe his warnings were understated. As with any industry, there are good and bad people. Agents are paid to move houses. If the median US home is under $200K, and commissions average say 5%, the $10,000 to be gained is split between the buyer brokerage and selling agent. The $5000 to each is then shared with 'the house.' So, this sale would net me $2500, gross. Move one a week, and the income is great, one per month, not so much. Tire kickers will waste an agent's time for a potential decision to wait another year and continue renting. Their obligation is to tell you the truth, but not to offer financial advice. Remember the mortgage crisis? It seems the banks and brokers aren't watching out for you either. They will tell you what they'll lend you, but not what you can afford. These numbers are worlds apart. I strongly recommend a 20% downpayment. The FHA PMI calculator shows that a 90% LTV (i.e. a 10% downpayment) for a $100K house will cost you $1200/yr in PMI. Think about this. For the $10,000 that you didn't put down, you are paying an extra $1200 each year. This is on top of the interest, so even at 5%, that last $10,000 is costing nearly 17%. If you can't raise that $10K (or whatever 10% is on that house) in cheaper funds, you should hold off. Using the 401(k) loan for this purpose is appropriate, yet emotionally charged. As if suck loans are written by the devil himself. \"\"Buy the biggest house you can\"\"? No. I have a better idea. Buy the smallest place you can tolerate. I have a living room (in addition to family room) that has been used 3 times in 20 years. A dining room we actually use. Twice per year. When your house is 50% too big, you pay 50% more property tax, more utility bills, and more maintenance. Closing costs, commission, etc, isn't cheap, but the lifetime cost of living in a too-big house is a money pit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a7975f7b904e476239cf8f0dc1eb4de",
"text": "\"If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis. It all depends on the numbers you plug in. Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k. Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k. You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc. Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k. It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo. In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it. It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years. That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is: if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value. However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have increased in price. But it may not scale. When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses. That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low. Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either market? I don't think so. I think, in general, buying \"\"more house\"\" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable. Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles. The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes. You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was. In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point: let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "d155ae5534d0d32f1e77521fe072f09c",
"text": "\"That sounds like a particularly egregious version of exclusivity. However, the way that you could handle that is to include a \"\"contingency\"\" in your purchase agreement stating that your offer is contingent upon the seller paying the brokerage fee. The argument against this, and something your broker might use to encourage you not to do so, is that it makes your offer less attractive to the buyer. If they have two offers in hand for the same price, one with contingencies and one without, they will likely take the no-contingency offer. In my area, right now, house offers are being made without very common contingencies like a financing contingency (meaning you can back out if you can't finance the property) or an inspection contingency. So, if your market is really competitive, this may not work. One last thought is that you could also use this to negotiate with your broker. Simply say you're only sign this expecting that any offer would have such a contingency. If it's untenable in your current market, it will likely cause your broker to move on. Either way, I'd say you should push back and potentially talk to some other brokers. A good broker is worth their weight in gold, and a bad one will cost you a boat load. And if you're in Seattle, I'll introduce you to literally the best one in the world. :-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ce3b4c25472c83166561bff7a946771",
"text": "The mortgage is a debt and you pay interest on it, typically more than you can earn elsewhere (especially once taxes are taken into account.) By lowering the principal, you lower the total interest you pay. This is true whether you sell the house after 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years. In your case, prepayments made in the next few years would mean that when you sell, your mortgage principal would be lower than it otherwise would have been, and your house equity will be higher. You can therefore either move up to more house for the same monthly payment, or have a lower monthly payment for the same kind of house. Either of those are good things, right? Now is the easiest time to find a little more money, so do it if you can. Later you will have more obligations, and develop a taste for more expensive things (statistically speaking) and therefore find a few hundred a month much harder to come by.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8a32bd41ce337dbffc94eb86141d43a",
"text": "In response to one of the comments you might be interested in owning the new home as a rental property for a year. You could flip this thinking and make the current home into a rental property for a period of time (1 year seems to be the consensus, consult an accountant familiar with real estate). This will potentially allow for a 1031 exchange into another property -- although I believe that property can't then be a primary residence. All potentially not worth the complication for the tax savings, but figured I'd throw it out there. Also, the 1031 exchange defers taxes until some point in the future in which you finally sell the asset(s) for cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fab78c04a66a89ee0cd7467bfa6429fa",
"text": "In the context of EDV, 4.46 is the indicated dividend rate. The indicated dividend rate is the rate that would be paid per share throughout the next year, assuming dividends stayed the same as prior payment. sources:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6027469fe2cb45ad372b8b736d78b610",
"text": "\"The cause of the increase in 2006-2011 was the financial crisis, where, if you recall, the global banking system came close to collapse for reasons that are well documented. Rightly or wrongly, gold is seen as a safe haven asset in times of crisis. The price of gold began to decline in 2011 when the markets decided that the risk of a global banking system collapse had passed without further incident. In the period leading up to 2006, the price of gold was in a flat-to-down trend because there was little net buying interest in gold and large gold sales had been executed by various central banks around the world who felt that gold no longer had a place in central bank reserves. In modern economies gold is seen as a \"\"fringe\"\" asset. It has no role to play. The recent financial crisis may have dented that perception, but those dents are now being forgotten and the price of gold is returning to its long-term downward trend. When the next financial/banking crisis is upon us, the price of gold will again (probably) rally. The extent of the rally will depend on the extent of the crisis.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4399a20255c5301eafb6f7b947584bc2
|
How do you measure the value of gold?
|
[
{
"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": "f2196a80356d985d1d3b618b47eb2137",
"text": "\"There are three aspects of what to value gold over. It doesn't easily chemically react with anything, so it stays pure over a long period of time (vs, say a bar of iron or a bar of butter). So it's valuable so far as it doesn't rot. It is shiny, and there is the historical allure of having a bag of shiny, jingly gold coins. Other people will give you other items of perceived value in exchange for it. I believe it was Warren Buffett who stated his opinion on gold - paraphrased such: \"\"You pay people to dig it out of the ground, you pay people to purify it and pour into forms, you pay people to verify the number of nine's purity in it, you pay people to build a secure building to store it in, and you pay people to stand around and guard it. Where is the value in that?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89301bf904b266e986a2adae98def27f",
"text": "\"Intrinsic value is a myth. There is no such thing. Subjective human demand is the only thing that gives anything value. This subjectivity is different person to person and can change very quickly. Historically there are two main uses for gold: jewelry and money. How can you tell when a particular type of money is undervalued? It disappears from circulation since people prefer to use money that is overvalued. This phenomenon is paraphrased in Gresham's Law: Bad money drives out good money. The Coinage Act of 1792 established the US dollar as 371.25 grains of silver or 24.75 grains of gold. This established a government ratio of 15 ounces of silver to 1 ounce of gold. In the late 18th century there was a large production of silver from Mexico and the market ratio of silver to gold increased to 15.75 to 1 by 1805. The government ratio, however, was still 15 to 1. This was enough incentive for people to exchange their silver coins for gold coins at the government ratio, melt the gold, and sell the gold bullion overseas at the market value. Thus, gold coins disappeared from circulation as people either hoarded the gold or sent it abroad. People used the overvalued silver coins (i.e. the \"\"bad\"\" money) domestically and gold coins disappeared from the market. In an attempt to correct the problem of disappearing gold coins the Coinage Act of 1834 was enacted. It kept the US dollar at 371.25 grains of silver but changed the definition to 23.2 grains of gold which established a government ratio of 16 to 1. This was close to the market ratio of gold to silver at the time so both gold and silver coins appeared in circulation again. The gold rush of 1849 produced a lot of gold and the market ratio of silver to gold became 15.46 to 1. Now gold was overvalued so people began exchanging their gold coins for silver coins at the government ratio, melt the silver, and sell the silver bullion overseas at the market value. People used the overvalued gold coins (i.e. the \"\"bad\"\" money) domestically and silver coins disappeared from the market. When you see gold circulating everywhere you will know it is overvalued compared to other types of money. Paper money always drives gold out of circulation since the market ratio of paper to gold severely under values gold. Source here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adbf875f8d2517033d641b19a42c1ad0",
"text": "\"1) Get some gold. 2) Walk around, yelling, \"\"Hey, I have some gold, who wants to buy it?\"\" 3) Once you have enough interested parties, hold an auction and see who will give you the most dollars for it. 4) Trade the gold for that many dollars. 5) You have just measured the value of your gold.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52e43f337573ab8f2e5d232c5da4910f",
"text": "\"I can describe the method for determining a price floor, which may help. It starts with looking at the cost of mining. There's a ridiculously small amount of gold in the best ore, so it's measured in tonnes of ore to produce a given ounce of gold. Mines will only operate at a loss for so long, so for any mine which focuses on gold, when the price of gold is below that price for long enough, the mine will cease operation. Since not all mines have the same cost, the supply will not appear as a step function, it will reduce slowly as mines close. \"\"Gold Drops Below Cash Cost, Approaches Marginal Production Costs\"\" offers a marginal cost of production just over $1100. This is not a floor price, as the market can act irrationally at times. It's just a number to consider. On the demand side, the industrial use (I am thinking gold plating in electronics manufacturing) will serve to provide demand almost regardless of price. When a $100 microprocessor uses say 10 cents worth of gold (at $300/oz) $1500 gold increases the final chip price by 1/2%. The industry is still trying to move away from Gold where they can, but that's a long process. As far as a ceiling goes, I highly recommend the book Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds which offers insight on a number of mania that have occurred not just in the past few decades, but over the centuries. At $1500/oz, the value of all the gold in the world is about US$7.5trillion (That's 12 zeros). Given that a portion of it is in jewelry and not available as an investment, it's safe to say that the entire world can only easily bid on about 1/3 of this (as the gold council cites 31% of gold going towards investments each year vs 57% jewelry and 11% industrial) or US$2.5T or so. With total world wealth at US$125T it would take a bit more hysteria to push gold from its current 2% of that value (funny how that number lined up perfectly) to much higher. Note: I provided a number of links, as it's too easy to just throw numbers around. See the links and provide more current data if you're so inclined. Data isn't real time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ae49b8e9a9d40ae1f9aa9ea020b65ea",
"text": "You acquire something because you expect to use it, or because you expect to exchange it for something that you want to use. Gold is a good candidate for storing value because it's rare, it's not easily counterfeited, it's divisible, it's portable, etc. Contrast this with your favorite currency: more can be printed up almost at will, etc. Overvaluedness/undervaluedness is only in reference to something else. How many dollars does it take to buy an ounce of gold? (About $1,500.) How many ounces does it take to equal the DJIA? (About 8.) How many ounces of silver does it take to buy an ounce of gold? How many barrels of oil can you buy with an ounce of gold? Etc., etc. But whatever measure you're using, the value of the gold you have is directly related to the mass of gold you own. Two ounces are twice as valuable as one ounce. As the old joke goes (no offense to taxi drivers intended!) when your cabbie starts talking about how to get rich with gold, it's probably overvalued. Sell it all! ;)",
"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": "ad0187493c3ae900e0502326a87747e6",
"text": "\"We measure the value of gold by comparing it to other things. Sorry, but there is no better answer than that. There is no gold standard (pun intended) by which objects can be measured in value because \"\"value\"\" is a subjective term. It would be comparable to asking how funny is an object. Different objects are funny to different people. Even if we gathered all the really \"\"funny\"\" object together, there is no guaranty those objects would be funny next year - unless we all agreed they were as part of a social contract. Which is basically what we do with currency. While gold does not need a social contract in order for it to retain its value, this is only because it is has been (1) very useful and (2) rare. If either of these two factors change, the value of gold will change - which it has on several occasions. WARRING: Rant about \"\"Intrinsic Value\"\" of gold below. Gold has no \"\"intrinsic\"\" value. None whatsoever. \"\"Intrinsic value\"\" makes just as much sense as a \"\"cat dog\"\" animal. \"\"Dog\"\" and \"\"cat\"\" are referring to two mutually exclusive animals, therefore a \"\"cat dog\"\" is a nonsensical term. Intrinsic Value: \"\"The actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying perception of its true value ...\"\" Intrinsic value is perceived, which means it is worth whatever you, or a group of people, think it is. Intrinsic value has nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing, to do with reality. The most obvious example of this is the purchase of a copy-right. You are assigning an intrinsic value to a copy-right by purchasing it. However, when you purchase a copy-right you are not buying ink on a page, you are purchasing an idea. Someone's imaginings that, for all intensive purposes, doesn't even exist in reality! By definition, things that do not exist do not have \"\"intrinsic\"\" properties - because things that don't exist, don't have any natural properties at all. \"\"Intrinsic\"\" according to Websters Dictionary: \"\"Belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing ... (the intrinsic brightness of a star).\"\" An intrinsic property of an object is something we know that exists because it is a natural property of that object. Suns emit light, we know this because we can measure the light coming from it. It is not subjective. \"\"Intrinsic Value\"\" by definition is the OPPOSITE of \"\"Intrinsic\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "41d16faa39889d7deb9d94d194aa8873",
"text": "It helps to put the numbers in terms of an asset. Say a bottle of wine costs 10 dollars, but the price rises to 20 dollars a year later. The price has risen 100%, and your dollars have lost value. Whereas your ten used to be worth 100% of the price of bottle of wine, they now are worth 50% of the risen price of a bottle of wine so they've lost around 50% of their value. Divide the old price by the new inflated price to measure proportionally how much the old price is of the new price. 10 divided by 20 is 1/2 or .50 or 50%. You can then subtract the old price from the new in proportional terms to find how much value you've lost. 1 minus 1/2 or 1.00 minus .50 or 100% minus 50%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f395ab2911cf726f0f95ad459c5c8e8",
"text": "Excellent explanation. Upvote to you sir. I would like to add something: How do we know how many bushels of apples is worth a chunk of deer meat? You did not touch on the concept of value. The way I see it, value is related to the human energy required to procure a specific good. For example: it takes a man all day to find a nugget of gold, while it take another man all day to pick 20 bushels of apples. Because gold is scarce, it is worth a lot of apples: it has a high value. At it's core, value is assigned based on the amount of human labor required to acquire a good or service. For example: Many years ago there may have been an equal number of bears and skunks. However, it would take many brave hunters with bows and arrows to kill a bear, while any hunter could kill a skunk solo. Thus, even though they had the same scarcity, a bear hide would be more valuable because the human labor required was greater. Many economics classes simply say value depends on supply and demand. However, if something is in low supply and high demand, it is BECAUSE it takes so much human effort to procure. If it did not take large amounts of human labor, everyone would sell said item and the value would drop. What is your take on this? do you have a better explanation for value?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d94ae385472b5e5bc693de99ac90847",
"text": "I apply what you term 'money' to the word 'commodity'. And I agree with littleadv, you are just selling us your perspective on (such things as) precious metals. What I want you to think about is these truths: When used as currency gold just has two values: utility value and currency value. I hold it is better to separate the two. There is not enough gold in the earth to represent the value in aggregate economies of the world. Trying to go back to the gold standard would only induce an unimaginable hyperinflation in gold. Recent years shows that gold does not retain value. See the linked chart.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "726fbdba1e79487a1d8064202473751e",
"text": "But how valuable is it in the Star Trek world? How much gold is available and how much do they need?Are there alternatives? Will they ever find another element that replaces it? These all affect the actual value... Nothing has value without demand, so how can anything be intrinsically valuable?",
"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": "cbe2602216d25f7f2f97e3625c46ea0b",
"text": "\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"",
"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": "cc423b22c60f3fca9cbc3a00e6c7eddd",
"text": "The calculators on this site should help: http://www.measuringworth.com/ They allow you to choose a currency (only about half a dozen are available), enter an amount and the years to compare, and then provides feedback in a table. Obviously you will need to be careful which calculator you choose. If they don't cover the currencies you are dealing with, see this site: http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html They provide numerous links that, while they don't provide sleek calculators per se, they do offer guidance on how to handle conversions yourself. Regarding comparing the cost to something like gold, to try and help younger readers, I think it's a good idea but gold is not the ideal choice for comparison. I'd recommend something more tangible like household goods - what a Playstation would have cost in 1930s money etc. In short: the value of gold is esoteric even for most adults - concrete examples would be better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfce008a3bea0d55d073d6ecaa183625",
"text": "\"Gold had value because it could be stamped with a value. The value is the number on the coin. Gold really doesn't have intrinsic value and it's value during a actual famines is very very low. For more info, see a very interesting digression in \"\"Wealth of Nations.\"\"\"",
"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": "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": "0af1d1dcebdbdfeaaa3645ad359906e4",
"text": "\"Are you talking about a country besides the US? And you're talking about a commercial bank, right? In the US, banks don't buy gold from consumers. The last time they sort of did (in the early 1900s), they were trading gold coins for gold certificates, and then they later stopped allowing consumers to trade them back. This is known by a well-known financial term: \"\"Gotcha, suckers!\"\" If someone were naive enough to deposit a $50 Gold American Eagle today in a bank, the depositor will get a credit of $50 on their account, and later some clever person will ask the teller if they have any \"\"strange money\"\" lying around, and that lucky person will be able to withdraw a $1,700 coin for $50, if it lasted for even a second in the teller's drawer. But let's say you're going to a place that does indeed still buy gold coins. The discount depends on the type of coin, and the type of damage. An old (collectible) coin has a part of its value set by the gold value, and part by the collector's premium. Better specimens command better collector's premiums, so a damaged coin, as long as it isn't a chunk of the coin missing, won't be worth less than the melt value. (You may not get that much from a dealer, but it should be fairly close.) If part of the coin is missing, then the person buying it should weigh the coin and adjust the price proportionately. It's likely, though, that if you have the items in a safe, you may have a puddle or blob of gold, but it should still all be there unless someone takes it. Gold melts at about 1850 degrees Fahrenheit, but it would take half the surface temperature of the sun for it to boil away. If it's unidentifiable, it may need to be assayed again.\"",
"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": "5ec249d15cdf8b304ba16f6bff83fc77",
"text": "\"Nobody can give you a definitive answer. To those who suggest it's expensive at these prices, [I'd point to this chart](http://treo.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6002285970c014e8c39f2c3970d-850wi) showing the price of gold versus the global money supply over the past decade or so. It's not conclusive, but it's evidence that gold tracks the money supply relatively well. There might be a bit of risk premium baked in that it would shed in a stable economy, but that premium is unknowable. It's also (imo) probably worth the protection it provides. In an inflationary scenario (Euro devaluation) gold will hold its buying power very well. It also fares well in a deflationary environment, just not quite as well as holding physical currency. Note that in such an environment, bank defaults are a big danger: that 50k might only be safe under your mattress (rather than in a fractionally reserved bank account). If you're buying gold, certificates aren't exactly a bad option, although there still exists the counterparty risk of the agent storing your gold, as well as political risk of the nation where it's being held. Buying physical bullion ameliorates these risks, but then you face the problem of protecting it. Safe deposit boxes, a home safe, or burying it in your backyard are all possible options. The merits of each, I'll leave as an exerice to the reader. Foreign currency might be a little bit better than the Euro, but as we've seen in the past year or so, the Swiss Franc has been devalued to match the Euro in the proverbial \"\"race to the bottom\"\". It's probably not much better than another fiat currency. I don't know anything about Norway. Edit: Depending on your time horizon, my personal opinion would be to put no less than 5-10% of your savings in a hard store of value (e.g. gold, silver, platinum). Depending on your risk appetite, you could probably stand to put a lot more into it, especially given the Eurozone turmoil. Of course, as with anything else, your mileage may vary, past performance does not guarantee future results, this is not investment advice, seek professional medical help if you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43ffaa8b095662452f8d5ec8a43c82bc",
"text": "You should invest a trivial (<500$USD) amount of money in a stock portfolio. If you aren't able to make more on the market than the interest rates of your loans, you are losing money. This question has discussed this topic as well.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dfe369d62c2dd6e9f906ea97fe30fac0
|
If I want a Credit Card offered through a different Credit Union should I slowly transition my banking to that CU?
|
[
{
"docid": "8b640edb8b56e08cfad2eeea936c8a8b",
"text": "No. There's no inherent reason to link the place that you bank with any other financial service. There may occasionally be benefits; for instance you can sometime get lower rates on mortgages or loans by having a a checking account with an institution. Or perhaps it'll be easier for you to make a same-day payment on a credit account. There could be some negatives as well. If you fall behind on a loan account, the bank may take money from your savings/checking account to satisfy your debt. Choose a bank or CU that's convenient to you. Choose a credit card from whatever bank or CU provides you with the best benefits. If that credit card is coming from a CU that requires a savings account for membership, open a minimum balance savings account and apply for the product you're interested in. If your credit is as good as you claim, they'll be happy to offer you the credit card regardless of whether you do your day-to-day banking with them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "436a77a7a99c6137a6a3c3394e5508b9",
"text": "I don't have an account with either of those CUs, but I do have membership at 2 different CUs. If they accept credit card payments online via transfer from another institution, there's no reason to move your money, unless there are other benefits (higher interest rates). All the CUs would likely require is membership ($5 deposit minimum?). If you were to get a card through Chase or Capital One, you wouldn't be expected to open a checking/savings account with them and transition over to those accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d99c0fecb93d42157abb6924bf80d1c7",
"text": "As has been stated, you don't need to actively bank with a credit union to apply for one of their credit cards. That said, one benefit to having account activity, and significant capital with a CU, is to increase the likelihood of having a larger credit line granted to you, when you do apply. If you are going to use the card sparingly however, then this is a non issue. That said, if you really want to maximize card benefits, then you want to look for cards with large sign up bonuses (e.g. Chase Sapphire, or Ink Bold if you have a business) and sign up exclusively for those bonuses. These cards offer rewards in excessive value of $1000 in travel services (hotels/plane tickets), or $500 cash back if you prefer straight cash back redemptions. If you prefer to keep it really simple, you can sign up for a cash back card, like the Amex Fidelity, which offers 2% cash back everywhere, with no annual fee (albeit the cash back is through their investment account, which you don't actually have to 'invest' with). Personally, I have the Penfed card, and use it exclusively for gas (5% cash back). I also have a Charles Schwab bank account, which I keep funded exclusively for ATM withdrawals (free ATM usage, worldwide, 100% fee reimbursement). I use the accounts exclusively for the benefit they provide me, and no more and have never had an issue. I also have 3 dozen other credit cards which I signed up for exclusively for the sign up bonus, but that's outside the scope of this question. I only mention it because you seem to believe it is difficult to get approved for a new credit line. If your credit is good however, you won't have a problem. For a small idea, of how to maximize credit card bonus categories, I would advise you read this. As mentioned in the article, its possible to get rewards almost everywhere you shop. In short, anytime you use cash, you are missing out on a multitude of benefits a credit card offers you (e.g. see the benefits of a visa signature card) in addition to points/cash back.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "735a302c22d48444116baf1755b339fc",
"text": "Fees mostly. BOA, for example, just announced $5/month for for all debit cards. Chase has foreign transaction fees, mostly hidden. BOA once famously raised interest rates on credit card holders to 28%, legally. Also, some people do not like patronizing a bank with CEOs that bankrupt the company and then get multi-million dollar golden parachutes. Finally some people have a problem with banks or institutions that suspend accounts based on political or unproven legal proceedings (ala Wikileaks and BOA). Credit unions are less like to be involved in this sort of activity since they are not privately traded, and as such they are not ruled by shareholders who demand bottom line results at all costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f065b8be944fd034e311cad20e89a83e",
"text": "I hear this a lot but how does it work exactly? Is it the more money you have in your share (savings) account the more weight your vote carries? Or does each member get one vote? I've been a credit union member for 15 years and have never had any say in anything. I also work for a small bank and both institutions are basically the same. My bank has better rates than my credit union on lended money but my CU pays higher rates on my money. My bank is also a publicly traded company and has regular meetings in which any shareholders can come voice their opinion, I've never heard anything about such activity with my credit union.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79d2333883311c3f95c3dc99d8619d1d",
"text": "Not sure if this is possible... It is possible! It is called a balance transfer card and most of the major credit card companies offer them. It is possible to save a significant amount on interest during the grace period. However... Is this a viable option? Not really. Any card will charge you an upfront fee of 3% to 5% of the balance you are transferring. This really only buys you some time in case you are about to fall behind on payments. For many people it's just a way to shuffle around debt, digging themselves a little deeper into consumer debt with each transfer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2719727152ef15ef114555e18b31596d",
"text": "\"Not exactly. In a credit union, all members are \"\"shareholders.\"\" The CUs \"\"pass\"\" onto their shareholders in the form of significantly lower interest rates, higher savings interest rates, complementary perks like paid life insurance, and others depending on your CU.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15719a8b8ee5b0361f43e22b91f3d55b",
"text": "\"Generally not. Since authorized user cards are the same account and the difference between the two (the original and the AU card) are minimal. Note, there's nothing technically stopping banks from offering this as a feature, two cards do have identifiers that indicate they're separate cards, but the banks concern for your needs stops at how much they can bleed from you, and \"\"helping you control your spending\"\" is not part of that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e68db5c2c9a5586f8320886ebec6055e",
"text": "Another thing to factor in are deals provided by banks. In general, banks care about new customers more than their existing customers. Hence they explicitly restrict the best deals on credit cards, savings accounts, etc, to new customers only. (Of course, there are occasionally good deals for existing customers, and some banks choose not to discriminate.) If you have many different bank accounts, you are making yourself unavailable for switching bonuses and introductory rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17ce5593ba047d28569a420592ed0d29",
"text": "If the rate is the same, then clearing one card to zero does have one advantage: getting your grace period back. Generally when you owe money on your credit card, and you make a new purchase that new purchase get charged interest starting on day one. But if you are not carrying a balance, in other words you pay off the charges every month, then new purchases aren't charged until you fail to pay the balance by the due date. That grace period can be 25 to 55 days depending where you are in the billing cycle. Having one clean card will allow you to use that card when you have no other choice. Lets say you have an emergency car repair while away from home. You don't have $500 in cash so you put it on the clean card. When you get home you know that you can pay the bill and not have been charged interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "870698d1faf244c51861b34a51f37bd5",
"text": "\"As anecdotal experience, we have a credit account in my name as offered by bank's marketing before I could qualify by common rules for newcomers (I have an account there for years so they knew my history and reliability dynamics I guess), and my wife is subscribed as a secondary user to the same credit account with a separate card. So we share the same limits (e.g. max month usage/overdraft) and benefits (bank's discounts and bonuses when usage passes certain thresholds - and it's easier to gain these points together than alone) so in the end maintenance of the card costs zero or close to that on most months, while the card is in a program to get discounts from hundreds of shops and even offers a free or discounted airport lounge access in some places :) But the bonus program is just that - benefits come and go as global economics changes; e.g. we had free car assistance available for a couple of years but it is gone since last tariff update. Generally it is beneficial for us to do all transactions including rent etc. via these two credit cards to the same account, and then recharge its overdraft as salaries come in - we have an \"\"up to 50 days\"\" cooloff period (till 20th of next calendar month) with no penalties on having taken the loans - but if we ever did overstretch that, then tens of yearly percents would kick in. Using the card(s) for daily ops, there is a play on building up the credit history as well: while we don't really need the loans to get from month to month, it helps build an image in the face of credit organizations, which can help secure e.g. favorable mortgage rates (and other contract conditions) which are out of pocket money range :) I'd say it is not only a \"\"we against the system\"\" sort of game though, as it sort of trains our own financial discipline - every month we have (a chance) to go over our spendings to see what we did, and so we more regularly think about it in the end - so the bank probably benefits from dealing with more-educated less-random customers when it comes to the bigger loans. Regarding internet, we tend to trust more to a debit card which we populate with pocket money sufficient for upcoming or already placed (blocked) transactions. After all, a malicious shop can not sip off thousands of credit money - but only as much as you've pre-allocated there on debit.\"",
"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": "5ccf39b3489f7603142b6c9326d7289e",
"text": "Don't switch just because you hear people panicking on the talk shows. Banks are competitive business and won't start charging for using debit cards too fast. If and when they decide to do such a thing after all - then start shopping and see who doesn't catch up with the fees and still provides the services you want for the price you're willing to pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b198461ba3b9f14c0cfd3e01b893a69",
"text": "I don't believe they're right. For international wire transfers you'd need either IBAN or SWIFT codes. I don't think any US bank participates in the IBAN network (mostly Europe and the Far East), so SWIFT is they way to go with the US. Credit unions frequently don't know what and how to do with international transactions because they don't have them that often. Some don't even have SWIFT codes of their own (many, in fact) and use intermediaries to receive money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb2ac77cfda30b9880d048969dd608a1",
"text": "You can also take a major credit card to almost any bank, walk up to the counter, and take a cash advance there as well. Doing it at the counter will save you the ATM fee, though the bank may charge a processing fee so it could turn out more expensive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "388cfa647237827e2374fa3143f898a5",
"text": "\"Usually you need to switch accounts. Lower rate cards usually offer less generous benefits. I'd advise looking at the charts on credit card rates in the back of a magazine like \"\"Money\"\" or \"\"Kiplingers\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "733a24dc9aff8589d4a617d2d8f05503",
"text": "Each of those is a network. Merchants displaying their logos - participate in their network and will accept cards that bear the same logo. Most merchants participate in more than one network. Discover is mostly used in the US, while Visa, Mastercard and American Express are more widely spread in the world (Amex less, Visa and MC are much more widely spread). In addition to being widely spread in the US, Discover is accepted everywhere where UnionPay is accepted (mostly in China) and Diners Club (mostly in EMEA). Advantages/disadvantages? You'll have to compare specific cards, but if you're a traveler in the world - then Discover will probably not be as appealing as Visa or Mastercard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f831a87251b5b0650787d224c5b200c",
"text": "Thanks, at the moment I don't plan to do alot of trading just need to sell a few shares at the moment and might sell some more more at another point, but other than that I don't plan on touching the stock and just plan on letting it re-invest itself. Since I don't plan on doing alot of selling I don't know how much I need to worry about fee's as long as they aren't too steep.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
13ebdbaeeb537314f9119e069f418ad0
|
Buying my first car: why financing is cheaper than paying cash here and now?
|
[
{
"docid": "4f9f5b030ba22a07c5635bb76abf7cda",
"text": "The dealership is getting a kickback for having you use a particular bank to finance through. The bank assumes you will take the full term of the loan to pay back, and will hopefully be a repeat customer. This tactic isn't new, and although it maybe doesn't make sense to you, the consumer, in the long run it benefits the bank and the dealership. (They wouldn't do it otherwise. These guys have a lot of smart people running #s for them). Be sure to read the specifics of the loan contract. There may be a penalty for paying it off early. Most customers won't be able to pay that much in cash, so the bank makes a deal with the dealership to send clients their way. They will lose money on a small percentage of clients, but make more off of the rest of the clients. If there's no penalty for paying it off early, you may just want to take the financing offer and pay it off ASAP. If you truly can only finance $2500 for 6 mos, and get the full discount, then that might work as well. The bank had to set a minimum for the dealership in order to qualify as a loan that earns the discount. Sounds like that's it. Bonus Info: Here's a screenshot of Kelley Blue Book for that car. Car dealers get me riled up, always have, always will, so I like doing this kind of research for people to make sure they get the right price. Fair price range is $27,578 - $28,551. First time car buyers are a dealers dream come true. Don't let them beat you down! And here's more specific data about the Florida area relating to recent purchases:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1998aad62501d90096f94e435b798ef6",
"text": "The advice given at this site is to get approved for a loan from your bank or credit union before visiting the dealer. That way you have one data point in hand. You know that your bank will loan w dollars at x rate for y months with a monthly payment of Z. You know what level you have to negotiate to in order to get a better deal from the dealer. The dealership you have visited has said Excludes tax, tag, registration and dealer fees. Must finance through Southeast Toyota Finance with approved credit. The first part is true. Most ads you will see exclude tax, tag, registration. Those amounts are set by the state or local government, and will be added by all dealers after the final price has been negotiated. They will be exactly the same if you make a deal with the dealer across the street. The phrase Must finance through company x is done because they want to make sure the interest and fees for the deal stay in the family. My fear is that the loan will also not be a great deal. They may have a higher rate, or longer term, or hit you with many fee and penalties if you want to pay it off early. Many dealers want to nudge you into financing with them, but the unwillingness to negotiate on price may mean that there is a short term pressure on the dealership to do more deals through Toyota finance. Of course the risk for them is that potential buyers just take their business a few miles down the road to somebody else. If they won't budge from the cash price, you probably want to pick another dealer. If the spread between the two was smaller, it is possible that the loan from your bank at the cash price might still save more money compared to the dealer loan at their quoted price. We can't tell exactly because we don't know the interest rates of the two offers. A couple of notes regarding other dealers. If you are willing to drive a little farther when buying the vehicle, you can still go to the closer dealer for warranty work. If you don't need a new car, you can sometimes find a deal on a car that is only a year or two old at a dealership that sells other types of cars. They got the used car as a trade-in.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "75a26be06709df3f36a688e5dfa26a49",
"text": "Cash is very effective at getting a discount when buying from individuals (craigslist, garage sales, estate sales, flea markets, etc.). I'll make an offer, then thumb through the cash while they consider it. There eyes will dart back and forth between my eyes and the cash as they decide whether to take my offer. Car dealers do seem to be very unique. The dealer I bought at recently said that 70% of their deals were cash purchases, JoeTaxpayer's dealer said 1% were cash purchases. I've had good luck negotiating with cash for well-loved cars (under $10K) from both individuals or used dealers. I'm also looking for carpet for my house and the first vendor I went to offered at 5% discount if I paid up front (no financing).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "086a9ad3b409d1498b7d28307f1f69f3",
"text": "If you have the money to pay cash for the car. Then 0 months will save you the most money. There are of course several caveats. The money for the car has to be in a relatively liquid form. Selling stocks which would trigger taxes may make the pay cash option non-optimal. Paying cash for the car shouldn't leave you car rich but cash poor. Taking all your savings to pay cash would not be a good idea. Note: paying cash doesn't involve taking a wheelbarrow full of bills to the dealer; You can use a a check. If cash is not an option then the longest time period balanced by the rates available is best. If the bank says x percent for 12-23 months, y percent for 24-47 months, Z percent for 48 to... It may be best to take the 47 month loan, because it keeps the middle rate for a long time. You want to lock in the lowest rate you can, for the longest period they allow. The longer period keeps the required minimum monthly payment as low as possible. The lower rate saves you on interest. Remember you generally can pay the loan off sooner by making extra or larger payments. Leasing. Never lease unless you are writing off the monthly lease payment as a business expense. If the choice is monthly lease payments or depreciation for tax purposes the lease can make the most sense. If business taxes aren't involved then leasing only means that you have a complex deal where you finance the most expensive part of the ownership period, you have to watch the mileage for several years, and you may have to pay a large amount at the end of the period for damages and excess miles. Plus many times you don't end up with the car at the end of the lease. In the United States one way to get a good deal if you have to get a loan: take the rebate from the dealer; and the loan from a bank/credit Union. The interest rate at banking institution is a better range of rates and length. Plus you get the dealer cash. Many times the dealer will only give you the 0% interest rate if you pay in 12 months and skip the rebate; where the interest paid to the bank will be less than the rebate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba37f8fbac914f2ec53278db02793614",
"text": "Dealer financing should be ignored until AFTER you have agreed on the price of the car, since otherwise they tack the costs of it back onto the car's purchase price. They aren't offering you a $2500 cash incentive, but adding a $2500 surcharge if you take their financing package -- which means you're actually paying significantly more than 0.9% for that loan! Remember that you can borrow from folks other than the dealer. If you do that, you still get the cash price, since the dealer is getting cash. Check your other options, and calculate the REAL cost of each, before making your decisions. And remember to watch out for introductory/variable rates on loans! Leasing is generally a bad deal unless you intend to sell the car within three years or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ac5cffbd419a4f21a5789c2b9dc010d",
"text": "Here is another way to look at it. Does this debt enable you to buy more car than you can really afford, or more car than you need? If so, it's bad debt. Let's say you don't have the price of a new car, but you can buy a used car with the cash you have. You will have to repair the car occasionally, but this is generally a lot less than the payments on a new car. The value of your time may make sitting around waiting while your car is repaired very expensive (if, like me, you can earn money in fine grained amounts anywhere between 0 and 80 hours a week, and you don't get paid when you're at the mechanic's) in which case it's possible to argue that buying the new car saves you money overall. Debt incurred to save money overall can be good: compare your interest payments to the money you save. If you're ahead, great - and the fun or joy or showoff potential of your new car is simply gravy. Now let's say you can afford a $10,000 car cash - there are new cars out there at this price - but you want a $30,000 car and you can afford the payments on it. If there was no such thing as borrowing you wouldn't be able to get the larger/flashier car, and some people suggest that this is bad debt because it is helping you to waste your money. You may be getting some benefit (such as being able to get to a job that's not served by public transit, or being able to buy a cheaper house that is further from your job, or saving time every day) from the first $10,000 of expense, but the remaining $20,000 is purely for fun or for showing off and shouldn't be spent. Certainly not by getting into debt. Well, that's a philosophical position, and it's one that may well lead to a secure retirement. Think about that and you may decide not to borrow and to buy the cheaper car. Finally, let's say the cash you have on hand is enough to pay for the car you want, and you're just trying to decide whether you should take their cheap loan or not. Generally, if you don't take the cheap loan you can push the price down. So before you decide that you can earn more interest elsewhere than you're paying here, make sure you're not paying $500 more for the car than you need to. Since your loan is from a bank rather than the car dealership, this may not apply. In addition to the money your cash could earn, consider also liquidity. If you need to repair something on your house, or deal with other emergency expenditures, and your money is all locked up in your car, you may have to borrow at a much higher rate (as much as 20% if you go to credit cards and can't get it paid off the same month) which will wipe out all this careful math about how you should just buy the car and not pay that 1.5% interest. More important than whether you borrow or not is not buying too much car. If the loan is letting you talk yourself into the more expensive car, I'd say it's a bad thing. Otherwise, it probably isn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f23b324328a3959962de22867d43218",
"text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "979150f0ed4d6e0a2bded0486e3ed0a7",
"text": "\"They aren't actually. It appears to be a low interest rate, but it doesn't cover their true cost of capital. It is a sales tactic where they are raising the sticker price/principal of the car, which is subsidizing the true cost of the loan, likely 4% or higher. It would be hard to believe that the true cost of a car loan would be less than for a mortgage, as with a mortgage the bank can reclaim an asset that tends to rise in value, compared to a used car, which will have fallen in value. This is one reason why you can generally get a better price with cash, because there is a margin built in, in addition to the fact that with cash they get all their profit today versus a discount of future cash flows from a loan by dealing with a bank or other lending company. So if you could see the entire transaction from the \"\"inside\"\", the car company would not actually be making money. The government rate is also so low that it often barely covers inflation, much less operating costs and profit. This is why any time you see \"\"0% Financing!\"\", it is generally a sales tactic designed to get your attention. A company cannot actually acquire capital at 0% to lend to you at 0%, because even if the nominal interest rate were 0%, there is an opportunity cost, as you have observed. A portion of the sticker price is covering the real cost, and subsidizing the monthly payment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d174defc8801df83b7f99517cd0d43f",
"text": "At first guess, people have less and less disposable cash/income for a down payment which subsequently results in longer loan duration. I thought I recall reading an article not too long ago where average auto loan term was 70 something months and average new car is $30k+. That’s a lot of $$$ for a country where median household income is $50k.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1589d69152a6c39b837a4cbea6147ad",
"text": "I have a job and would like to buy equipment for producing music at home and it would be easier for me to pay for the equipment monthly I just want to address your contention that it would be easier to pay monthly, with an interest calculation. Lets say you get a credit card with a very reasonable rate of 12% and you buy $2,500 of equipment. A typical credit card minimum payment is interest charges + 1% of the principle. You can see how this is going. You've paid nearly $200 to clear about $100 off your principle. Obviously paying the minimum payment will take forever to wipe out this debt. So you pay more, or maybe you get 0% interest for a while and take advantage of that. Paying $100 per month against $2,500 at 12% per year will take 29 months and cost about $390 in interest. At $200 per month it'll take 14 months and cost $184 in interest. Also note, you'll probably get an interest rate closer to 16 or 17%. It's always easier to pay small amounts frequently than it is to pay a lot of money all at once, that ease has a cost. If you're buying the gear to start a little business, or you already have a little business going and want to upgrade some gear, great; disciplined debt handling is a wonderful skill to have in business. If you want to start yourself in to a new hobby, you should not do that with debt. If interest rates are low enough financing something can make sense. 0.9% apr on a car, sure; 15% apr on a mixing board, no. Credit card interest rates are significant and really should not be trifled with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "277d4423be680399e5c346d4177ce244",
"text": "In the UK at least, dealers definitely want you to take finance. They get benefits from the bank (which are not insubstantial) for doing this; these benefits translate directly to increased commission and internal rewards for the individual salesman. It's conceivable that the salesman will be less inclined to put himself out for you in any way by sweetening your deal as much as you'd like, if he's not going to get incentives out of it. Indeed, since he's taking a hit on his commission from you paying in cash, it's in his best interests to perhaps be firmer with you during price negotiation. So, will the salesman be frustrated with you if you choose to pay in cash? Yes, absolutely, though this may manifest in different ways. In some cases the dealer will offer to pay off the finance for you allowing you to pay directly in cash while the dealer still gets the bank referral reward, so that everyone wins. This is a behind-the-scenes secret in the industry which is not made public for obvious reasons (it's arguably verging on fraud). If the salesman likes you and trusts you then you may be able to get such an arrangement. If this does not seem likely to occur, I would not go out of my way to disclose that I am planning to pay with cash. That being said, you'll usually be asked very early on whether you are seeking to pay cash or credit (the salesman wants to know for the reasons outlined above) and there is little use lying about it when you're shortly going to have to come clean anyway.",
"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": "584d3a1d780d21200d209d91a428d8b4",
"text": "Cash price is $22,500. Financed, it's the same thing (0% interest) but you pay a $1500 fee. 1500/22500 = 6.6%. Basically the APR for your loan is 1.1% per year but you are paying it all upfront. Opportunity cost: If you take the $22,500 you plan to pay for the car and invested it, could you earn more than the $1500 interest on the car loan? According to google, as of today you can get 1 year CD @ 1.25% so yes. It's likely that interest rates will be going up in medium term so you can potentially earn even more. Insurance cost: If you finance you'll have to get comprehensive insurance which could be costly. However, if you are planning to get it anyway (it's a brand new car after all), that's a wash. Which brings me to my main point: Why do you have $90k in a savings account? Even if you are planning to buy a house you should have that money invested in liquid assets earning you interest. Conclusion: Take the cheap money while it's available. You never know when interest rates will go up again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5508414a61fc0d5f77fd9551e59b8de",
"text": "To add to what others have said, INSTALLMENT CREDIT is a stronger factor when building credit. An installment credit is essentially a loan with a fixed repay amount such as a student loan and a car loan. Banks (when it comes to buying your first home) want to see that you are financially able to repay a big debt (car loan). But be careful, if you cannot pay cash, you cannot afford it. My rule of thumb is that when I'm charging something to my CC, I MUST pay it off when it posts to my account. I just became debt free (paid off about 15k in CC and student loan debt in 18 months) and I love it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63c200f9812b79185eda09b2cf23f12d",
"text": "I never understood why people lease rather than buy or finance. I'm financing a new civic 09 @ 0.9%. At the end of the 5 year terms I will have paid less than $800 in interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14fbd60f61528b74f681f6033acfc003",
"text": "The risk besides the extra interest is that you might be upside down on the loan. Because the car loses value the moment you drive off the lot, the slower you pay it off the longer it takes to get the loan balance below the resale value. Of course if you have a significant down payment, the risk of being upside down is not as great. Even buying a used car doesn't help because if you try to sell it back to the dealer the next week they wont give you the full price you paid. Some people try and split the difference, get the longer term loan, but then pay it off as quickly as the shorter term loan. Yes the interest rate is higher but if you need to drop the payment back to the required level you can do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e2d938368b8ad8d6728add755e7e798a
|
Joint account that requires all signatures of all owners to withdraw money?
|
[
{
"docid": "02a058752d659ec81be42f03e06b6ccb",
"text": "Savings accounts have lower fees. If you don't anticipate doing many transactions per month, e.g. three or fewer withdrawals, then I would suggest a savings account rather than a checking account. A joint account that requires both account holder signatures to make withdrawals will probably require both account holders' signature endorsements, in order to make deposits. For example, if you are issued a tax refund by the U.S. Treasury, or any check that is payable to both parties, you will only be able to deposit that check in a joint account that has both persons as signatories. There can be complications due to multi-party account ownership if cashing versus depositing a joint check and account tax ID number. When you open the account, you will need to specify what your wishes are, regarding whether both parties or either party can make deposits and withdrawals. Also, at least one party will need to be present, with appropriate identification (probably tax ID or Social Security number), when opening the account. If the account has three or more owners, you might be required to open a business or commercial account, rather than a consumer account. This would be due to the extra expense of administering an account with more than two signatories. After the questioner specified interest North Carolina in the comments, I found that the North Carolina general banking statutes have specific rules for joint accounts: Any two or more persons may establish a deposit account... The deposit account and any balance shall be as joint tenants... Unless the persons establishing the account have agreed with the bank that withdrawals require more than one signature, payment by the bank to, or on the order of (either person on) the account satisfys the bank's obligation I looked for different banks in North Carolina. I found joint account terms similar to this in PDF file format, everywhere, Joint Account: If an item is drawn so that it is unclear whether one payee’s endorsement or two is required, only one endorsement will be required and the Bank shall not be liable for any loss incurred by the maker as a result of there being only one endorsement. also Joint accounts are owned by you individually or jointly with others. All of the funds in a joint account may be used to repay the debts of any co-owner, whether they are owed individually, by a co-owner, jointly with other co-owners, or jointly with other persons or entities having no interest in your account. You will need to tell the bank specifically what permissions you want for your joint account, as it is between you and your bank, in North Carolina.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eeca0a2b4af05100ffe716150b4feb26",
"text": "\"I'm pretty sure that the banks here will only allow a joint account with either all citizens or all \"\"foreign resident\"\" or tourists. You may be able to do something with Leumi since they have a US branch in NYC. What many people do (who are US citizens) is open a bank account either at a physical branch or online and then it can be managed all online. Make sure no monthly balance fees or atm fees etc. If you need to transfer money most banks will \"\"buy\"\" a US check (I have done this with Leumi) or you can go to the ATM and pull out a few thousand shekel from the USA account and deposit it right back into the Israeli account. My wife and I did this when we first arrived. Discount Bank seemed to have no fees for pulling money out and a good USD/ILS rate. Just make sure you don't have foreign transaction fees / high rates on the US account. If you need to deposit checks for him you can use the remote deposit feature and just take a picture. בהצלחה!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2931ed836111fe94d3fdb3cbf23826a0",
"text": "Do you have signature authority or interest in the account? Then yes. Interest in the account means that you wire $25K to your dad, but the money still belongs to you (I.e.: if you ask for it your dad will give it back to you).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "532ccb785de284ab88f3b35849ce2e55",
"text": "No. But the scenario is unrealistic. No bank will give the LLC any loan unless the members personally co-sign to guarantee it. In which case, the members become personally liable in addition to the LLC.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd55f90bd71c1fc6fbf7018fd284c21f",
"text": "\"Uniform Transfer to Minors Act (UTMA) and Uniform Gift to Minors Act (UGMA) accounts in the United States are accounts that belong to your child, but you can deposit money into. When the child attains his/her majority, the money becomes theirs to spend however they wish. Prior to attaining their majority, a custodian must sign off on withdrawals. Now, they are not foolproof; legally, you can withdraw money if it is spent on the child's behalf, so that can be gamed. What you can do to protect against that is to make another person the custodian (or, perhaps make them joint custodians with yourself, requiring both signatures for withdrawals). UTMA/UGMA accounts do not have to be bank savings accounts; for example, both of my children have accounts at Vanguard which are effectively their college savings accounts. They're invested in various ETFs and similar kinds of investments; you're welcome to choose from a wide variety of options depending on risk tolerance. Typically these accounts have relatively small fees, particularly if you have a reasonable minimum balance (I think USD$10k is a common minimum for avoiding larger fees). If you are looking for something even more secure than a UGMA or UTMA account, you can set up a trust. These have several major differences over the UGMA/UTMA accounts: Some of course consider the second point an advantage, some a disadvantage - we (and Grandma) prefer to let our children make their own choices re: college, while others may not prefer that. Also worth noting as a difference - and concern to think about - in these two. A UGMA or UTMA account that generates income may have taxable events - interest or dividend income. If that's over a relatively low threshhold, about $1050 this year, those earnings will be taxed (on the child's own tax return). If it's over $2100 (this year), those earnings will be taxed at the parents' tax rate (\"\"kiddie tax\"\"). Trusts are slightly different; trusts themselves are taxed, and have their own tax returns. If you do set one of those up, the lawyer who helps you do so should inform you of the tax implications and either hook you up with an accountant or point you to resources to handle the taxes yourself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a46ce492ee495a06054dae7c4ee929c",
"text": "\"What you describe is called a \"\"partnership\"\" (\"\"General Partnership\"\", more precise). Partnership are unincorporated associations of people with a common goal in mind. Every partner shares the same responsibility and obligations, and the duties and authorizations to act on behalf of the partnership should be written down and signed by all the partners in a contract, which is called \"\"Operating Agreement\"\". With that in place, you (if you're given the authority by the partners) can open a bank account on behalf of the partnership, and allow other partners access to it (with or without signature authority, per the operating agreement). If you're talking about a group of homeowners - you should set up a \"\"Homeowners Association\"\" (HOA). Per applicable state law it would either be a limited partnership or a special kind of incorporated entity. That entity can enter contracts (hire a lawyer, for example) on behalf of all the owners.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79da6c65d434de3aca1f6e2abf11aa5d",
"text": "\"You need to consult a lawyer in your area. Generally speaking though, if you breach the T&C, they don't have to follow them either, which means that whatever they were responsible for in those terms and conditions, they're no longer responsible. So if you get hacked, and they can prove you breached T&C by sharing your credentials, they are absolutely off the hook for your financial losses. So if they detect you're in breach, they may record it and not pursue any other action unless/until you have an issue, in which case they say, \"\"they're in breach, see here, here and here.\"\" Or there may be regulations that require they notify you of their detection of the breach. If this sort of regulation exists, I suspect that the notification would also include a termination of all accounts as well. I can also picture situation where a company might have such a policy built into the T&C so that they can steer as clear as possible from any situations involving liability and cyber-crime in the same sentence. My suggestion would be to take the terms and conditions for your banks to some kind of legal clinic and get them to explain the parts that you do not understand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a838469fa155163c0b924eaa6f44b0e",
"text": "\"Cosigning is explicitly a promise that you will make the payments if the primary signer can not. Don't do it unless you are able to handle the cost and trust the other party will \"\"make you whole\"\" when they can... which means don't do it for anyone you would not lend your money to, since it comes out to about the same level of risk. Having agreed, you're sorta stuck with your ex-friend's problem. I recommend talking to a lawyer about the safest way get out of this. It isn't clear you can even sue the ex-friend at this point.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2c42bddf3080ea7ae21817338063ec0",
"text": "The bank won't let you because: Differences in required account features — Business accounts have different features (many of them legal features) that are required by businesses. For instances: Do you want to be able to deposit cheques that are written out to your business name? You need a business account for that. Your business could be sold. Then it wouldn't be your business, so it wouldn't make sense to put the business account under your personal name. The bank account and the cash it holds is a business asset and should be owned by the business, so when the business is sold the account goes with it. This is especially the case for a corporation that has shareholders, and not a sole proprietorship. For a business, you could also, in theory, assign other people as signing authorities on the business account (e.g. your corporate treasurer), and the individuals performing that role could change over time. Business accounts allow for this kind of use. Market segmentation — The bank has consciously undertaken to segment their product offerings in order to maximize their profit. Market segmentation helps the bottom line. Even if there were zero legal reasons to have separate personal vs. business accounts, banks would still make it their policy to sell different account types according to use because they can make more money that way. Consider an example in another industry: The plain-old telephone company also practices segmentation w.r.t. personal/business. Do you want a telephone line for a business and listed as such in the phone book? You need a business line. Do you want a phone line hooked up at a non-residential address? You need a business line. Here it's clear it is less of a legal issue than with the bank account, and it doesn't matter that the technical features of the phone line may be identical for the basic product offerings within each segment. The phone company has chosen to segment and price their product offerings this way. Q. Why do companies choose to charge some kinds of customers more than others for essentially the same underlying service? A. Because they can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96159077e368527db2d43f985f7595bd",
"text": "\"Your money in the bank is yours. If you lose your bank card and forget the account number, it's still yours. It's just harder to prove. If your name is Joe Smith, it might be harder to find your bank account and to prove it's yours. If \"\"go to the bank\"\" means walking into a branch of the bank and walking out with your money fifteen minutes later, that's unlikely to happen. More likely they will give you forms to fill in to maximise chances of finding your account, and tell you what evidence to bring to prove that you are the owner of the account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02c78bcfa77c8f9dce19cef17e2a50db",
"text": "It will not affect your tax bracket so long as he files his taxes. It will not affect your credit negatively so long as the joint account takes out no debts. If it does take out debts, then someone would need to pay them to avoid negative credit. Ideally debts should take signatures from both of you (ask the bank). The IRS will not automatically assume that the only reason that two people might have a joint account is illegal activities. If he withdraws money from the account in such a way to cause an overdraft, you might be responsible for it. However, it sounds like he isn't supposed to be withdrawing money from that account. So that's a potential problem but not a guaranteed problem. Make sure that you have the power to close the account without him (so if you break up later, you can take your name off unilaterally). Realize that you might have to pay a little to close the account if he overdraws it. If possible, have the bank refuse overdrafts. Consider a savings account rather than a checking account. The rules may better fit what you want to do. In particular, if you are limited to transfers, that's safer than checks. Schedule a time to talk to someone at the bank about the account. Ask them to leave plenty of time because you have questions. Explain what you want and let them tell you how to structure the account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04f81083600e6efd66a27ac1fd14ac8a",
"text": "In my experience, this choice is entirely up to the bank itself. There was a time when, given my mothers ATM card I could go to the bank and pull money for her, but the bank has since changed their rules and now they only will allow people listed on the account to access it, card or no card. If the bank is aware of who you are and knows that your friend is not you, they may be skeptical of allowing your friend to withdraw any money, or they might not care, it's at their discretion. If they do not know who either of you are, if your friend has the card and information needed, that will likely be sufficient, unless they ask for identification.",
"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": "14dfd4204061a8a6f575f0f1353fff93",
"text": "In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account. You do if you are exchanging the check for cash. Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them. Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account. Individuals can do the same. I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them. Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them. I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a94776ff15107b4078eabd2f71906a41",
"text": "\"Welcome to the 21st century, the New Order. Forget all that legal mumbo jumbo you may have read back in law school in the 1960s about commercial code. Its all gone now. Now we have Check 21 and the Patriot Act !!! Basically what this means is that because some Arab fanatics burned down the World Trade Center, the US government and its allied civilian banking company henchmen now have total control and dictatorship over \"\"your\"\" money, which is no longer really money, but more like a \"\"credit\"\" to your account with THEM which they can do with what they want. Here are some of the many consequences of the two aforementioned acts: (1) You can no longer sue a bank for mishandling your money (2) All your banking transaction information is the joint property of the bank, its \"\"affiliates\"\" and the US Treasury (3) You can no longer conduct private monetary transactions with other people using a bank as your agent; you can only request that a bank execute an unsecured transaction on your behalf and the bank has total control over that transaction and the terms on which occurs; you have no say over these terms and you cannot sue a bank over any financial tort on you for any reason. (4) All banks are required to spy on you, report any \"\"suspicious\"\" actions on your part, develop and run special software to detect these \"\"suspicious actions\"\", and send their employees to government-run educational courses where they are taught to spy on customers, how to report suspicious customers and how to seize money and safe deposit boxes from customers when the government orders them to do so. (5) All banks are required to positively identify everyone who has a bank account or safe deposit box and report all their accounts to the government. (6) No transactions can be done anonymously. All parties to every banking transaction must be identified and recorded. So, from the above it should be clear to (if you are a lawyer) why no endorsement is present. That is because your check is not a negotiable instrument anymore, it is merely a request to the bank to transfer funds to the Treasury. The Treasury does not need to \"\"endorse\"\" anything. In fact, legally speaking, the Treasury could simply order your bank to empty your account into theirs, and they actually do this all the time to people they are \"\"investigating\"\" for supposed crimes. You don't need to endorse checks you receive either because, as I said above, the check is no longer a negotiable instrument. Banks still have people do it, but it is just a pro forma habit from the old days. Since you can't sue the bank, the endorsement is pretty meaningless because it cannot be challenged in court anyway. You could probably just write \"\"X\"\" there and they would deposit it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cda7eea9124be207c47508a4ae82b316",
"text": "\"we can then start taking penalty free withdrawals from it? There's no \"\"we\"\" in IRA. There's \"\"I\"\". That stands for \"\"Individual\"\". So your wife's age has no influence whatsoever on your ability to make qualified distributions from your IRA. The reason courts order distributions from IRAs is due to the community property laws of various States or other considerations that make spouses entitled to the amounts in the IRAs. However, you're talking about family law here, not tax law. For Federal tax purposes, a distribution ordered by the court doesn't trigger penalty (but is taxable), but any other distribution has to follow the regular qualification criteria.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7cbcb660f24334601de3db2175f24564
|
What could be the harm in sharing my American Express statements online?
|
[
{
"docid": "334b64dd9b69e5dcffb441f922e147ed",
"text": "\"American Express is great for this use case -- they have two user roles \"\"Account Agent\"\" and \"\"Account Manager\"\" which allow you to designate logins to review your account details or act on your behalf to pay bills or request service. This scheme is designed for exactly what you are doing and offers you more security and less hassle. More details here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dec97805d71df6a1e4966b5cb02aa13",
"text": "\"If someone gains access to these data, he could use social engineering approach to impersonate you - i.e. call the American Express and ask tell he he is you and he lost the access to the account and he needs the access to be reset and sent to certain email, and if they doubt it's you he would send them the statement data, even on company letterhead (which he would be able to fake since he has the data from the statements, and AE has no idea how the authentic letterhead looks like). He could also do the opposite trick - like calling your assistant or even yourself and saying something like \"\"I'm from American Express, calling about the transaction at this-and-this date and this-and-this time, this amount, please confirm you are {your name} and your address is {your address}, I need to confirm something\"\" - which would make it appear as he is really from AE since he knows all these details - and then ask you some detail he's missing \"\"for security\"\" - like your birth date or last digits of SSID or anything like that - and then use these details to impersonate you to AE. So putting all this info together where it can be accessed by strangers does have risks. It may not work out if both you and AE personnel are vigilant and follow instructions to the letter, but we know it not always so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7961bf8b2194c12d5745e927e5942934",
"text": "Call me overly paranoid, but letting unknown people know your charges and your personal information is asking for trouble. They know who you are and how to find you and how much money you typically make. If they are decent people - okay, but otherwise they have good ground for comitting a crime against you - blackmail you, con you, target thieves on you, steal your identity, anything else which you won't like if it happens. And it has noting to do with being from Philippines - disonest people are everywhere. Crimes happen all the time, just the less you expose yourself the less likely a crime will be committed against you. My suggestion would be to share as little financial and personal data as possible, especially to share as little actual money figures as possible. Also see this question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9410aac2831c33bba5318245fae862a3",
"text": "\"As a person who has had several part time assistants in the past I will offer you a simple piece of advise that should apply regardless of what country the assistant is located. If you have an assistant, personal or business, virtual or otherwise, and you don't trust that person with this type of information, get a different assistant. An assistant is someone who is supposed to make your life easier by off loading work. Modifying your records before sending them every month sounds like you are creating more work for yourself not less. Either take the leap of faith to trust your assistant or go somewhere else. An assistant that you feel you have to edit crucial information from is less than useful. That being said, there is no fundamental reason to believe that an operation in the Philippines or anywhere else is any more or less trustworthy than an operation in your native country. However, what is at issue is the legal framework around your relationship and in particular your recourse if something goes wrong. If you and your virtual assistant are both located in the US you would have an easier time collecting damages should something go wrong. I suggest you evaluate your level of comfort for risk vs. cost. If you feel that the risk is too high to use an overseas service versus the savings, then find someone in the states to do this work. Depending on your needs and comfort you might want to seek out a CPA or other licensed/bonded professional. Yes the cost might be higher however you might find that it is worth it for your own piece of mind. As a side note you might even consider finding a local part-time assistant. This can often be more useful than a virtual assistant and may not cost as much as you think. If you can live without someone being bonded. (or are willing to pay for the bonding fee) yourself, depending on your market and needs you may be able to find an existing highly qualified EA or other person that wants some after hours work. If you are in a college town, finance, accounting or legal majors make great assistants. They will usually work a couple hours a week for \"\"beer money\"\", they have flexible schedules and are glad to have something pertinent to their degree to put on their resume when they graduate. Just be prepared to replace them every few years as they move on to real jobs.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "013e7bbdcf2f60f8c14ed6aeb7d90a95",
"text": "\"This is most likely protecting Square's relationship with Visa/Mastercard/AMEX/etc. Credit card companies typically charge their customers a much higher interest rate with no grace period on cash advances (withdrawals made from an ATM using a credit card). If you use Square to generate something that looks like a \"\"merchandise transaction\"\" but instead just hand over a wad of banknotes, you're forcing the credit card company to apply their cheaper \"\"purchases\"\" interest rate on the transaction, plus award any applicable cashback offers†, etc. Square would absolutely profit off of this, but since it would result in less revenue for the partner credit card companies, that would quickly sour the relationship and could even result in them terminating their agreements with Square altogether. † This is the kind of activity they are trying to prevent: 1. Bill yourself $5,000 for \"\"merchandise\"\", but instead give yourself cash. 2. Earn 1.5% cashback ($75). 3. Use $4,925 of the cash and a $75 statement credit to pay your credit card statement. 4. Pocket the difference. 5. Repeat. Note, the fees involved probably negate any potential gain shown in this example, but I'm sure with enough creative thinking someone would figure out a way to game the system if it wasn't expressly forbidden in the terms of service\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5823db14aaace486dab89c419822af6d",
"text": "If you go to a grocery store and purchase retail gift cards along with other products, and you pay with a credit card, your credit card company generally does not know what you spent the money on; they don't get an itemized receipt.* If this is the case with your rewards card, then yes, you would get the cashback reward on the gift cards, because all the credit card company knows is that you spent $100 at the grocery store; they don't know (or care, really) that $50 of it was for an Olive Garden gift card. This, of course, should be fairly easy to test. Buy the gift card, wait for your statement, and see if they included the purchase when calculating your rewards. * Note: I don't have an American Express card, but from some quick googling I see that it is possible that American Express does actually receive itemized billing details on your purchases from some merchants. If your grocery store is sending this data to AmEx, it is possible that the gift cards could be excluded from rewards. But again, I suggest you just test it out and see.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a34e9337f07354d312028fd984a24ae9",
"text": "That all makes sense, but all of those things are the responsibility of the cardholder. If you want to pay off your balance, anything quoted would obviously not include any transaction yet to post. The problem is a creditor refusing to give the balance AND refusing to take a payment for an amount over the previous statement balance. This is essentially forcing the customer to pay more interest after they declare their intent to pay the full amount. Good points, but I don't believe those were factors in this case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcc99ce53784564e60c8529112455a1e",
"text": "You seem overly fixated on dead tree documentation of purchases. They are deducting this from your account monthly - the mere fact that the money was taken is enough to prove in court that they have you on their books and to hold them to paying out said insurance. The email copies is actually a better way to organize receipts in most cases (can't be destroyed as easily, etc.) You can cancel the insurance - but don't just stop paying (you'd owe them money then). I foresee increasing difficulty navigating the 21st century for you unless you can get past this concern about physical receipts. I doubt other companies would do much better. FWIW, I live in the continental US. I don't know how different the Philippines is with regard to moving everything to digital",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10fb3876dfd56ac3b8ae39c4aaf46346",
"text": "Do you need it? It doesn't sound like it - you seem to be able to manage with just the cards you have. Will it hurt anything? Probably not either, unless it entices you to spend more than you make. Another downside might be that you would spend more than you normally would just to have activity on every card. So all in all, I don't see much upside.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "306bb354eb7a9ffb5fae3393a9007d2d",
"text": "\"Others have already commented on the impact of anything which dissuades merchants from raising possible breaches, so I won't dwell on that. Maybe we need stronger legislation, maybe we don't, but it doesn't change today's answer. Often it works the other way around to what you might expect - rather than the merchant noticing and notifying Visa/MC/others, Visa/MC/others spot patterns of suspicious activity (example 1). I don't have any data on the relative numbers of who is being notified/notifying between merchants and payment processors, but at the point when your card is identified as compromised there's no reason to suppose that an individual merchant in the traditional sense has been compromised, let alone identified. In fact because there's a fast moving investigation it could even be a false alarm that led to your card getting cancelled. Conversely it could be a hugely complex multinational investigation which would be jeopardised. It's simply not safe to assume that simply \"\"brand X\"\" has been compromised, therefore everything \"\"brand X\"\" knows about you is also compromised: Furthermore there's no reason to assume the merchant has even admitted to, or discovered the root cause. MC/Visa/Banks, at the point at which they're cancelling cards simply can't say (at least not in a way that might expensively backfire involving lots of lawyers) because the standard of proof needed to go on record blaming someone is simply not yet met. So: yes it's common that you aren't told anything for all of the above reasons. And of course if you really want to find out more you may have some success with your local data protection legislation and formally make a subject access request (or local equivalent) to see what that brings back. Be sure to do it in writing, to the official address of both mastercard and your bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dabeca4966bcc58743a28badc128b907",
"text": "There are a couple of things to consider. First, in order to avoid interest charges you generally just need to pay the statement balance before the statement due date. This is your grace period. You don't need to monitor your activity every day and send immediate payments. If you're being really tight with money, you can actually make a little profit by letting your cash sit in an interest bearing account before you pay your credit card before the due date. Second, credit card interest rates are pretty terrible, and prescribed minimum payments are comically low. If you buy furniture using your credit card you will pay some interest, be sure to pay way more than the minimum payment. You should avoid carrying a balance on a credit card. At 20% interest the approximate monthly interest charge on $1,000 is $16.67. Third, if you carry a balance on your credit card you lose the interest grace period (the first point above) on new charges. If you buy your couch, and carry the balance, when you buy a soda at 7-11, the soda begins to accrue interest immediately. If you decide to carry a balance on a credit card, stop using that card for new charges. It generally takes two consecutive billing period full balance payments to restore the grace period. Fourth, to answer your question, using a credit card to carry a balance has no impact on your score. Make your payments on time, don't exceed your limits, keep your utilization reasonable. The credit agencies have no idea if you're carrying a balance or how much interest you're paying. To Appease the people who think point four needs more words: Your credit report contains your limit, your reported balance (generally your statement balance), and approximate minimum payment. There is no indication related to whether or not the balance contains a carried balance and/or accrued interest. The mere fact of carrying a balance will not impact your credit score because the credit reporting bureaus don't know you're carrying a balance. Paying interest doesn't help or hurt your score. Obviously if your carried balance and interest charges push your utilization up that will impact your score because of the increased utilization. Make your payments on time, don't exceed your limits, keep your utilization reasonable and your score will be fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e099e701dd6df16a91d3ffbb155fbb2",
"text": "I would behave exactly as I would expect it from others. If you were the one giving away too many points by accident you would be thankful if somebody notifies you about this error. You can write a letter or call them. I would not use the points (of course only not use the points which are added in error). Other options are possible but I would advise against them. It's just about fair play and the points are clearly not yours.",
"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": "98deac234312b8b39ece2d300ed8d336",
"text": "I don't use debit cards, but if I did I would review that portion of the statement. I look at my credit card statements pretty closely, and probably catch one or two mistakes or things I want to question every year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a3e7d460ce8ded7774fc6fbcc04ec54",
"text": "Some (most) credit cards have a way to get a one-time use number. If that is an available option for one of your cards, that is probably the way to do the very risky transaction. These numbers can be good for only one purchase, or for multiple purchases with a single vendor. This will limit your exposure because they won't have access to your entire account. Also review your fraud protections with your credit card. With the single use number, it won't matter if you use the electronic form or the email. Just make sure you keep the confirmation email or a screen capture of the form.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c379054d9bb2f8f8e00c23276160b954",
"text": "Close your card, now. Let your credit card provider / bank know about the situation. Never, ever ever, give out your password. Not to a friend, not to your bank and not even to your cat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9efcd54fdc54c52fb10a140211e2b41e",
"text": "The only people who should know my online bank password are me & my spouse. Forget it, I won't share that sensitive information with any other company. I might as well give a blank check! Besides, don't banks require people to keep their username & password & PIN private? I signed an agreement to that effect, I think! So even if I did find the online services compelling enough to try, I would want to check with my own bank first & ask them if it's OK to give my password to somebody else. I wonder what they would say to that!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "403ee36ddc52aed7be3f9ff2502f494f",
"text": "\"The link you originally included had an affiliate code included (now removed). It is likely that your \"\"friend\"\" suggested the site to you because there is something in it for your \"\"friend\"\" if you sign up with their link. Seek independent financial advice, not from somebody trying to earn a commission off you. Don't trust everything you read online – again, the advice may be biased. Many of the online \"\"reviews\"\" for Regal Assets look like excuses to post affiliate links. A handful of the highly-ranked (by Google Search) \"\"reviews\"\" about this company even obscure their links to this company using HTTP redirects. Whenever I see this practice in a \"\"review\"\" for a web site, I have to ask if it is to try and appear more independent by hiding the affiliation? Gold and other precious metal commodities can be part of a diversified portfolio, a small part with some value as a hedge, but IMHO it isn't prudent to put all your eggs in that basket. Look up the benefits of diversification. It isn't hard to find compelling evidence in favor of the practice. You should also look up the benefits of low-fee passively-managed index funds. A self-directed IRA with a reputable broker can give you access to a wide selection of low-fee funds, not just a single risky asset class.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eeb5183d169e66dbe014066095e48da",
"text": "You have little chance of getting it deleted. I have the same situation, I closed mine in 2006, and the login still works. Keep the paperwork that you closed it (or print a PDF of the site showing so), and forget about it. If someone is trying to cheat, re-opening it should be the same difficulty as making a new one in your name, so it is not really an additional risk. You could also set the username and password both to a long random string, and not keep them. That soft-forces you to never login again. Note that it will also stay on your credit record for some years (but that's not a bad thing, as it is not in default; in the contrary). The only negative is that if you apply for credit, you might be ashamed of people seeing you ever having had a Sears or Macy's card or so.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d171199a2f35fced645fa20303dd468e
|
Borrowing money for a semi-urgent medical expense
|
[
{
"docid": "a46c1561e9a7dba170df3a8253d3ead3",
"text": "The best option would be to have the dental office allow you pay in installments. That would be probably the cheapest and most convenient way. When high amounts are involved - many medical offices are flexible with payments and allow spreading over long period of time, so you should check it out. Otherwise, credit cards would probably be the most expensive loan, but you should shop around and compare the rates offered to you, it is hard to guess would you may get.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96e522fb519872fcc3fe3b02aeb5bc18",
"text": "\"I am a bit confused here as to how a 4K loan will negatively effect your credit score if payments are made on time. FICO scores are based upon how well you borrow. If you borrow, pay back on time, your score will not go down. Perhaps a bit in the short run when you first secure the loan, but that should come back quickly. In the long run it will help improve your score which seems like it would be more important to you. Having the provider finance your loan will probably not show up on your credit unless you fail to pay and they send to collections. If the score is so important to you, which I think is somewhat unwise, then use a credit card. With a 750 you should be able to get a pretty good rate, but assume it is 18%. In less then 9 months you will have it paid off, paying about $293 in interest. You could consider that a part of the cost of doing business for maintaining a high credit score. Again not what I would advise, but it might meet your needs. One alternative is go with lending club. With that kind of score, you are looking at 7% or so. At $500 a month, you are still looking at just over 8 months and paying about $100 in interest. Much less money for improving your credit score. Edit based upon the comment: \"\"My understanding is that using a significant portion of your available credit balance is bad for your credit, even if you pay your bills on time.\"\" Define bad. As I said it might go down slightly in the short term. In three months you will have almost 33% of the loan paid off, which is significantly lower then the original balance. If you go the credit card route, you may be approved for quite a bit more then the 4000, which may not move the needle at all. Are you planning on buying a home in the next 90 days? If not, why does a small short term dip matter? Will your life really be effected if your score goes down to 720 for three months? Keep in mind this is exactly the kind of behavior that the banks want you to engage in. If you worship your FICO score, which gives no indication of wealth then you should do exactly what I am suggesting.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ee8811b2d81aab7d77767fffc1331f20",
"text": "Emergency funds, by the name it implies that they should be available on hand at a very short notice if needed. Conservation of principal (not withstanding inflation, but rather in absolute terms) is also a very important criteria of any kind of account that you will use to save the emergency fund. I would suggest the following breakup. The number in brackets signifies the amount of per month expenses that you can keep in that account. = total 6 months living expenses",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4a7824dea6df0994920939dd1e862e6",
"text": "\"The concept of emergency fund is a matter of opinion. I can tell you the consensus is that one should have 6-9 months worth of expenses kept as liquid cash. This is meant to cover literally all bills that you might encounter during that time. That's a lot of money. There are levels of savings that are shy of this but still responsible. Not enough to cover too much in case of job loss, but enough to cover the busted transmission, the broken water heater, etc. this is still more than many people have saved up, but it's a worthy goal. The doctor visit is probably the lowest level. Even without insurance, the clinic visit should be under $200, and this shouldn't cause you to have to carry that amount beyond the time the bill comes in. The point that shouldn't be ignored is that if you owe money at 18% on a credit card, the emergency fund is costing you money, and is a bit misguided. I'd send every cent I could to the highest rate card and not have more than a few hundred $$ liquid until the cards were at zero. Last - $5K, $10K in the emergency account is great, unless you are foregoing matched 401(k) dollars to do it. All just my opinion. Others here whom I respect might disagree with parts of my answer, and they'd be right. Edit - Regarding the 'consensus 6-9 months' I suggest - From Investopedia - \"\"...using the conservative recommendation to sock away eight months’ worth of living expenses....\"\" The article strongly support my range for the fact that it both cites consensus, yet disagrees with it. From Money Under 30 The more difficult you rank your ability to find a new job, the more we suggest you save — up to a year’s worth of expenses if you think your income would be very difficult to replace. From Bank of America I have no issue with those comfortable with less. A dual income couple who is saving 30% of their income may very well survive one person losing a job with no need to tap savings, and any 'emergency' expense can come from next month's income. That couple may just need this month's bills in their checking account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2ea0cf0c472d2cb95c2b6b9cdac798e",
"text": "\"They are right to ask for the money back because you were not entitled to that money. However, you may have a defense called \"\"laches\"\". Basically, you can try to show that because of the government's unreasonable delay in asking for the money back, in the meantime you relied on the assumption that it was your money in good faith, and spent it, and now to have to come up with the money that you assumed you wouldn't need would cause great harm to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e401a8ff82d95f592eab06973e952461",
"text": "While this question is old and I generally agree with the answers given I think there's another angle that needs a little illuminating: insurance. If you go with an 84 month loan your car will likely be worth less than the amount owed for substantially all of the entire 84 month loan period; this will be exacerbated if you put zero down and include the taxes and fees in the amount borrowed. Your lender will require you to carry full comprehensive/collision/liability coverage likely with a low maximum deductible. While the car is underwater it will probably also be a good idea to carry gap insurance because the last thing you want to do is write a check to your lender to shore up the loan to value deficit if the thing is totaled. These long term car loans (I've seen as high as 96 months) are a bear when it comes to depreciation and related insurance costs. There is more to this decision than the interest calculation. Obviously, if you had the cash at the front of this decision presumably you'll have the cash later to pay off the loan at your convenience. But while the loan is outstanding there are costs beyond interest to consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0767e00f54d58b1f0aaf5bea7160f835",
"text": "You can take out a personal loan for any reason - to burn the money for fun, if you like. But be aware that you owe it back, not your mother, or anyone else. They will come to you for the repayments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7c28f4c19bec73bdb506f07d5a19e6f",
"text": "One situation where it would be prudent not to contribute would be if expenses are so tight that you cannot afford to contribute because you need that cashflow for expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec5f508e7f500cdad2d26fd1adf49a37",
"text": "Deposit check and send a personal check (resulting in tax and IRS reporting issues) That's a bad idea, unless maybe the check you're receiving is a certified bank draft. Suppose the insurance company are crooks and the check is fraudulent. It could take weeks or months for some investigation to catch up to that, long after your own personal check was cashed by the pharmacy. The bank will then put you on hook for the 20 grand by reversing the check, even though the funds had been deposited into your account. Do not put yourself into the position of a money handler; you don't have the cash base, insurance, government protection and whatever else that a bank has. And, of course, you're being a free money handler if you do that. (You're not even compensated for postage, time and whatnot). If you're handling money between two parties, you should collect a percentage, or else refuse. That percentage has to be in proportion to the risk, since cashing a check for someone carries a risk similar to (and is effectively a form of) making a loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad0a10b997fe694ff570c21f460ebae",
"text": "Typically the least formal agreement for any type of lending is a Promisory Note (of which you can find plenty across the web, although I'd suggest picking up a Nolo book from the library and using their templates -- I think the book holding your type of form would be the Personal Legal forms Book). Still, $10k is a very large amount of money to lend to a friend and he probably is better off going to a bank and asking for an unsecured line of credit (not a credit card, but rather a general loan) and doing the money that way because typically that amount of money is small to the bank and they will already have the licenses/assets in place to handle collateral and such (which can be very tricky to do on your own).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89c79267825f4b73a1ce668d674e5ba3",
"text": "A medical expense is only a qualified medical expense eligible for an HSA distribution if it is not reimbursed by insurance. If you know that you will be reimbursed, do not pay for it through your HSA. Think of it this way: you can only be reimbursed for a medical expense once. Either you get reimbursed by your insurance, or you get reimbursed by your HSA, but not both. If you pay for the expense with your HSA and are later reimbursed, you need to return the money to your HSA through a mistaken distribution repayment. This is not considered a contribution, but you need to make sure to tell your HSA provider that it is a mistaken distribution repayment and not a contribution, so that it gets accounted for correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be5c91f7bd36d9bf2dcb82eb375ffbdb",
"text": "You should not continue contributing, as you're no longer qualified for it. You can keep it, and use the money in it toward the current medical expenses, without a problem. There are specific examples in pub 969.",
"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": "4414e027b470e0bbfd52df49d5900c61",
"text": "I would advise against this, answering only the first part of question #1. Borrowing and lending money among friends and family members can often ruin relationships. While it can sometimes be done successfully, this is most likely not the case. All parties involved have to approach this uniquely in order for it to work. This would include your son's future significant other. Obviously you have done very well financially, congratulations. Your view for your son might be for him to pay you off ASAP: Even after becoming a doctor, continue to live like a student until the loan is paid off. His view might be more conventional; get the car and house and pay off my loans before I am 50. He may start with your view, but two years in he marries a woman that pressures him to be more conventional. My advice would be to give if you can afford to, but if not, do not lend. If you decide to lend then come up with a very clear agreement on the repayment schedule and consequences of non-payment. You may want to see a lawyer. For the rest of it, interest payments received are taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45f2d7b866471abc707589c4e09d5403",
"text": "Seems like the doctor's office is not very organized. Ask for a line itemized bill. You want the date and the specific service(s) performed on those dates. If the bill seems fair and correct, try to negotiate cash discount payment. Ask how much they would settle for if you paid cash. If it is higher than you were thinking, say you were not expecting this sudden bill and if they would accept $xxx. If they say yes, great. If not, try to compromise, pay the suggested offer, or not pay and hope they don't send it to collections.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "624be7119d309f77ccbe708210bd6d79",
"text": "Here's your problem: The debt is valid and it is your debt, regardless of your arrangement with the insurance company. The insurance company (possibly) owes you money, and you owe the Doctor money. You are stuck in the middle, and in the end it doesn't matter whether the insurance company pays as to whether you owe the money. Don't ignore them. Also, disputing the debt it pointless because the truth is that you do owe the debt. The insurance company may owe you money (which is in dispute), but the debt to your medical provider is your own. You are just stuck in the middle. It sucks, but is pretty common. I think the best you can do is keep working on the insurance company and responding to the bill collectors letting them know that you are working on it and will need to pay late. In theory they deal with this a lot and probably understand, not that it will make them lay off you in the meantime. In the end it is possible you might have to sue the insurance company to get the money. One thing to be careful about: If the debt is fairly old (several years) you may want to avoid making partial payments because if this goes on your credit report, that payment may extend the period where the negative information can appear on your credit history.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "985486a39815f1162e41ebf5d72f5ae5",
"text": "I can safely assume that a credit union or a bank, probably a bank based on the size of the short term loan would allow use of the annuity as collateral for the loan. Since the future payouts from the annuity will more than cover the total costs coming due for your education I'm sure the bank will have no problem loaning the money and you can see if doing a direct payment monthly to them will reduce the rate. You can try a credit union since they will most likely give you a more favorable rate. If you can get a credit union to do it, you will most likely be paying a lot less, but typically they want interest paid monthly and not at the end of the 6 months term. There is also a service called TMS or Tuition Management Services which you can find at Tuition Management Services They typically also expect monthly payments but might do an alternative for you, they charge I believe a $60USD fee to use their service. Also just flat out bank shop and demand the lowest rate, its guaranteed money so you should be paying LIBOR plus 1 at most, see if you can direct your next payout to them with the balance coming to you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
73ed04ca4c181d2e7e2b02e49e43b1bc
|
Saving/ Investing a lump sum
|
[
{
"docid": "b41317e91da402872831179ca16e4e1b",
"text": "In my mind, when looking at a five year period you have a number of options. You didn't specify where you are based, which admittedly makes it harder, to give you good advice. If you are looking for an investment that can achieve large gains, equities are impossible to ignore. By investing in an index fund or other diverse asset forms (such as mutual funds), your risk is relatively minimal. However there has historically been five year periods where you would lose/flatline your money. If this was to be the case you would likely be better off waiting more than five years to buy a house, which would be frustrating. When markets rebound, they often do it hard. If you are in a major economy, taking something like the top 100 of your stock market is a safe bet, although admittedly you would have made terrible returns if you invested in the Polish markets. While they often achieve lower returns than equity investments, they are generally considered safer - especially government issued bonds. If you were willing to sacrifice returns for safety, you must always consider them. This is an interesting new addition, and I can't comment on the state of it in the United States, however in Europe we have a number of platforms which do this. In the UK, for example you can achieve ~7.3% returns YoY using sites like Funding Circle. If you invest in a diverse range of businesses, you have minimal risk from and individual company not paying. Elsewhere in Europe (although not appropriate for me as everything I do is denominated in Sterling), you can secure 12% in places like Georgia, Poland, and Estonia. This is a very good rate and the platforms seem reputable, and 'guarantee' their loans. However unlike funding circle, they are for consumer loans. The risk profile in my mind is similar to that of equities, but it is hard to say. Whatever you do, you need to do your homework, and ensure that you can handle the level of risk offered by the investments you make. I haven't included things like Savings accounts in here, as the rates aren't worth bothering with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa2b0a6b3793f38dafffe53ce49dc70d",
"text": "5 years is very short term, and since you are sure you'll need the money, investing it into the markets should probably not be done. You can toss it in Ally bank for 1% or consider a 5 yr raise your rate CD A decent write-up on time horizons: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110813/using-time-horizons-investing.asp If you want to go the stock/bond route you can assess the benefits of using something like a vanguard target date fund, or a roboadvisor such as wealthfront or betterment. You need to assess whether you think you may move up your time horizon, say you want to buy a house in 4 years, or, if it is 5 years, are you ok with it being 6.5-7 if there is a market downturn.",
"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": "f968ac77c114449dadf53ee74f7830b8",
"text": "You can't get there from here. This isn't the right data. Consider the following five-year history: 2%, 16%, 32%, 14%, 1%. That would give a 13% average annual return. Now compare to -37%, 26%, 15%, 2%, 16%. That would give a 4% average annual return. Notice anything about those numbers? Two of them are in both series. This isn't an accident. The first set of five numbers are actual stock market returns from the last five years while the latter five start three years earlier. The critical thing is that five years of returns aren't enough. You'd need to know not just how you can handle a bull market but how you do in a bear market as well. Because there will be bear markets. Also consider whether average annual returns are what you want. Consider what actually happens in the second set of numbers: But if you had had a steady 4% return, you would have had a total return of 21%, not the 8% that would have really happened. The point being that calculating from averages gives misleading results. This gets even worse if you remove money from your principal for living expenses every year. The usual way to compensate for that is to do a 70% stock/30% bond mix (or 75%/25%) with five years of expenses in cash-equivalent savings. With cash-equivalents, you won't even keep up with inflation. The stock/bond mix might give you a 7% return after inflation. So the five years of expenses are more and more problematic as your nest egg shrinks. It's better to live off the interest if you can. You don't know how long you'll live or how the market will do. From there, it's just about how much risk you want to take. A current nest egg of twenty times expenses might be enough, but thirty times would be better. Since the 1970s, the stock market hasn't had a long bad patch relative to inflation. Maybe you could squeak through with ten. But if the 2020s are like the 1970s, you'd be in trouble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e155a7538f8822b59bcea7d7e2f5090d",
"text": "In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37d96adb2a4325aba75b2c5be6005d57",
"text": "There are been many tests about invest all the money immediately and average it out during a period of time. The results favor to invest the lump sum immediately, so your money starts to work and produce income with dividends. Cash don't produce any income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ba5c8e77be27b5bbb0c9e0ac99adff3",
"text": "\"@MrChrister - Savings is a great idea. Coudl also give them 1/2 the difference, rather than the whole difference, as then you both get to benefit... Also, a friend of mine had the Bank of Dad, where he'd keep his savings, and Dad would pay him 100% interest every year. Clearly, this would be unsustainable after a while, but something like 10% per month would be a great way to teach the value of compounding returns over a shorter time period. I also think that it's critical how you respond to things like \"\"I want that computer/car/horse/bike/toy\"\". Just helping them to make a plan on how to get there, considering their income (and ways to increase it), savings, spending and so on. Help them see that it's possible, and you'll teach them a worthwhile lesson.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d1c127a3e9e3982f880d91565d518c2",
"text": "I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years. The concept is sound if executed correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c20c5d5624b3de97beca5b90c1b1dc8",
"text": "As others have said, this opinion is predicated on an assumption that early in your life you have no need to actually USE the money, so you are able to take advantage of compounding interest (because the money is going to be there for many many years) and you are far more tolerant of loss (because you can simply wait for the markets to recover). This is absolutely true of a pension pot, which is locked away for a great many years. But it is absolutely NOT true of general investments. Someone in the mid-20s to mid-30s is very likely to want to spend that money on, say, buying a house. In which case losing 10% of your deposit 3 months before you start looking for a house could potentially be a disaster. Liekwise, in your mid-40s if your child's school/college fund goes up in smoke that's a big deal. It is a very commonly espoused theory, but I think it is also fundamentally flawed in many scenarios.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22b3b000de1845fc6e8c7e67f098f7dc",
"text": "\"Sure. For starters, you can put it in a savings account. Don't laugh, they used to pay noticeable interest. You know, back in the olden days. You could buy an I-bond from Treasury Direct. They're a government savings bond that pays a specified amount of interest (currently 0%, I believe), plus the amount of the inflation rate (something like 3.5% currently, I believe). You don't get paid the money -- the I-bond grows in value till you sell it. You can open a discount brokerage account, and buy 1 or more shares of stock in a company you like. Discount brokerages generally have a minimum of $500 or so, but will waive that if you set the account up as an IRA. Scot Trade, for instance. (An IRA, in case you didn't know, is a type of account that's tax free but you can't touch it till you turn 59 1/2. It's meant to help you save for retirement.) Incidentally, watch out of \"\"small account\"\" fees that some brokerages might charge you. Generally they're annual or monthly charges they'd charge you to cover their costs on your account -- since they're certainly not going to make it in commissions. That IRA at Scot Trade is no-fee. Speaking of commissions, those will be a big chunk of that $100. It'll be like $7-$10 to buy that stock -- a pretty big bite. However, many of these discount brokerages also offer some mutual funds for no commission. Those mutual funds, in turn, have minimums too, but once again if your account's an IRA many will waive the minimum or set it low -- like $100.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c7dbf0512932aa995f8d4924466f134",
"text": "\"Here's what I suggest... A few years ago, I got a chunk of change. Not from an inheritance, but stock options in a company that was taken private. We'd already been investing by that point. But what I did: 1. I took my time. 2. I set aside a chunk of it (maybe a quarter) for taxes. you shouldn't have this problem. 3. I set aside a chunk for home renovations. 4. I set aside a chunk for kids college fund 5. I set aside a chunk for paying off the house 6. I set aside a chunk to spend later 7. I invested a chunk. A small chunk directly in single stocks, a small chunk in muni bonds, but most just in Mutual Funds. I'm still spending that \"\"spend later\"\" chunk. It's about 10 years later, and this summer it's home maintenance and a new car... all, I figure it, coming out of some of that money I'd set aside for \"\"future spending.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "beb1fdddf8e9c18e2038837e823bed0d",
"text": "In the United States, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation protects the first $500,000 you have at a brokerage including up to $250,000 in cash. This means that if the firm holding your securities fails financially, you have some coverage. That insurance does not prevent your investment itself from losing money. Even traditionally save money market funds can potentially lose value in a situation called Breaking the buck. This means that the Net Asset Value of the fund falls below $1/share. Alas, during periods of market calamity, even traditionally safe stores of value are subject to increased risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b1421ff7cbe19205c82ece4c8d8d6c7",
"text": "The straight math might favor leaving it, but I'd personally prefer to have it in my control in an IRA. My own employer offered a buyout on the pension program, and the choice between a nice lump sum vs some fixed number 20 years hence was a simple one for me. Both my wife and I (same company) took the lump sum, and never regretted it.",
"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": "57d4f1523f9fd61903f121d578b425fb",
"text": "I recommend saving for retirement first to leverage compound interest over a long time horizon. The historical real return on the stock market has been about 7%. Assuming returns stay at 7% in the future (big assumption, but don't have any better numbers to go off of), then $8,000 saved today will be worth $119,795 in 40 years (1.07^40*8000). Having a sizable retirement portfolio will give you peace of mind as you progress through life and make other expenditures. If you buy assets that pay you money and appreciate, you will be in a better financial position than if you buy assets that require significant cash outflows (i.e. property taxes, interest you pay to the bank, etc.) or assets that ultimately depreciate to zero (a car). As a young person, you are well positioned to pay yourself (not the bank or the car dealership) and leverage compound interest over a long time horizon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0b0784f9fc25a8f78170f45e68b67e6",
"text": "There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes: I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50 to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan. List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have? There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee2c4b844bf6867deea08781a2c05ee9",
"text": "\"Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student. Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going. I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations. I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost. You are not misusing your money by \"\"not doing anything with it\"\". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino. Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b35d9ca13e5785b2683b77c1b7b2b742
|
CFD market makers: How is the price coupled to the underlying security?
|
[
{
"docid": "594803b02ac90fe896d6011a89567cdb",
"text": "CFD providers typically offer CFDs to investors using either the direct market access (DMA) model or the market maker (MM) model. Direct Market Access The DMA model gives you access to trade the Underlying instrument on the relevant Exchange from which the CFD is then derived. All CFD Transactions under the DMA model have corresponding trades in the Underlying instrument. Under the DMA model, providers typically charge their clients Commission based on the notional contract value of the CFD. Market Maker The MM model uses the price of the Underlying instrument to derive the price of the CFD that is offered. Trading under the MM model does not necessarily mean that your CFD will be reflected by a corresponding trade in the Underlying instrument. Under the MM model each CFD Transaction creates a direct financial exposure for the provider, which may or may not be hedged in the Underlying instrument. Where the financial exposure is not hedged, the market risk may increase for the market maker. The MM model enables the provider to offer CFDs against synthetic assets, even if there is little Liquidity in the Underlying instrument, which can result in a wider range of products on offer than with the DMA model. Volatility and Illiquidity in the Underlying instrument can affect the pricing of MM CFDs. The MM model can charge its clients Commission based on the notional contract value or it can incorporate costs and fees in the dealing Spread, which represents the difference in price at which the issuer is prepared to Buy and Sell the CFD. What Do I use and why? I have traded with both DMA and MM models and prefer the MM. The big advantage with MM is that they will provide a market even when the underlying is very illiquid and only might have a few trades each day. Regarding the spread of the MM to the spread of the underlying, I have found the MM to be practically in line with the underlying spread about 95% of the time. The other 5% it may have been slightly wider than the spread of the underlying by usually 1c or 2c. Most MMs aim to give you the best spread they can because they want to keep your business. If they gave too wide a spread (compared to the underlying) it wouldn't be long before they had no customers.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2967b77ae227b3ece809a193dbd635fa",
"text": "\"The most fundamental observation of bond pricing is this: Bond price is inversely proportional to bond yields When bond yields rise, the price of the bond falls. When bond yields fall, the price of the bond rises. Higher rates are \"\"bad\"\" for bonds. If a selloff occurs in the Russian government bond space (i.e. prices are going down), the yield on that bond is going to increase as a consequence.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35b8026c69f4757eea3e2ab494b55195",
"text": "If you are trading CFDs, which are usually traded on margin, you will usually be charged an overnight financing fee for long positions held overnight and you will receive an overnight financing credit for short positions held overnight. Most CFD brokers will have their overnight financing rates set at + or - 2.5% or 3% from the country's official interest rates. So if your country's official interest rate is 5% and your broker uses + or - 2.5%, you will get a 2.5% credit for any short positions held overnight and pay 7.5% fee for any long positions held overnight. In Australia the official interest rate is 2.5%, so I get 0% for short positions and pay 5% for long positions held overnight. If you are looking to hold positions open long term (especially long positions) you might think twice before using CFDs to trade as you may end up paying quite a bit in interest over a long period of time. These financing fees are charged because you are borrowing the funds to open your positions, If you buy shares directly you would not be charged such overnight financing fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd15c1001b57459bb29d361ded4fa40",
"text": "\"Realize this is almost a year old, but I just wanted to comment on something in Dynas' answer above... \"\"Whenever you trade always think about what the other guys is thinking. Sometimes we forget their is someone else on the other side of my trade that thinks essentially the exact opposite of me. Its a zero sum game.\"\" From a market maker's perspective, their primary goal is not necessarily to make money by you being wrong, it is to make money on the bid-offer spread and hedging their book (and potentially interalize). That being said, the market maker would likely be quoting one side of the market away from top of the book if they don't want to take exposure in that direction (i.e. their bid will be lower than the highest bid available or their offer higher than the lowest offer available). This isn't really going to change anything if you're trading on an exchange, but important to consider if you can only see the prices your broker/dealer provides to you and they are your counterparty in the trade.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4c7c31d92616a46d5995d00c6fcea8c",
"text": "You will tend to find as options get closer to expiry (within 2 months of expiry) they tend to be traded more. Also the closer they are to being in the money they more they are traded. So there tends to be more demand for these options than long dated ones that are far out of the money. When there is this higher demand there is less need for a market maker to step in to assure liquidity, thus there should be no effect on the underlying stock price due to the high demand for options. I would say that market makers would mainly get involved in providing liquidity for options way out of the money and with long periods until expiry (6+ months), where there is little demand to start with and open interest is usually quite low.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df8064640cb8309f77df6ce7ab98bf82",
"text": "I think your confusion has arisen because in every transaction there is a buyer and a seller, so the market maker buys you're selling, and when you're buying the market maker is selling. Meaning they do in fact buy at the ask price and sell at the bid price (as the quote said).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18aa96f3262074f80fbd3733e132a152",
"text": "I think you're over complicating it! There is the market maker in the pure sense as what chilldontkill said - a bookie, a middleman. They are just the brokers in between the buyers and sellers, and they simply make profit off of the spread differential. But market maker is also used to refer to large, high volume buyers and sellers that can influence the price because they control a larger % of volume. These only really exist on low volume products, and they slowly ween out the larger the volume. On higher volume products, I like to refer to them as institutions - that is, well informed, large pockets - whether is be central banks, clearing houses, hedge funds, boutique firms. These are the people who are generally in the know and they often bet against eachother.hope this helps ...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6390bc4bd318df463271b969ab2ba9",
"text": "This has never really adequately explained it for me, and I've tried reading up on it all over the place. For a long time I thought that in a trade, the market maker pockets the spread *for that trade*, but that's not the case. The only sensible explanation I've found (which I'm not going to give in full...) is that the market maker will provide liquidity by buying and selling trades they have no actual view on (short or long), and if the spread is higher, that contributes directly to the amount they make over time when they open and close positions they've made. It would be great to see a single definitive example somewhere that shows how a market maker makes money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbbf20026295d71ea3dca0ed2c39b2e",
"text": "Consider the price history to be the sum of short term movements and long term movements. If you hold a stock for a long time you will benefit (or lose) from its long term movement. If a sufficiently large and very good short term trader existed he would tend to reduce short term volatility, eventually to nearly zero. At that point, the price would rise gently over the course of the day in line with the long term variation in price. Presumably robot traders will increase the time horizon of their trades when they have exhausted the gains they can make from short term trades.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1794254f59d47800357fec690d5f1a3a",
"text": "A CFD is like a bet. Bookies don't own horses or racetracks but you still pay them and they pay you if the horses win. If you buy a CFD the money goes to the firm you bought it from and if the stock price changes in your favour, they will pay you. However, if it goes against you they may ask you for more money than you originally invested to cover your losses. Constacts for difference are derivatives, i.e. you gain on the change in the price or delta of something rather than on its absolute value. Someone bets one way and is matched with someone (or perhaps more than one) betting the other way. Both parties are bound by the contract to pay or be payed on the outcome. One will win and the other will necessarily lose. It's similar in concept to a spread bet, although spread bets often have a fixed timescale whereas CFDs do not and CFDs generally operate via the payment of a commission rather than via charges included in the spread. There's more information on both CFDs and spread betting here If somone has a lot of CFDs that might affect the stock price if it's known about as others may buy/sell real stock to either make the CFD pay or may it not pay depending on whether they think they can make money on it. Otherwise CFDs don't have much of an effect on stock prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "351f89bd9a41b943744b8ce95e967cdb",
"text": "Excellent, very sharp. No it will not be vega neutral exactly! If you think about it, what does a higher vol imply? That the delta of the option is higher than under BS model. Therefore, the vega should also be greater (simplistic explanation but generally accurate). So no, if you trade a 25-delta risky in equal size per leg, the vega will not be neutral. But, in reality, that is a very small portion of your risk. It plays a part, but in general the vanna position dominates by many many multiples. What do you do that you asked such a question, if you don't mind?",
"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": "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": "be31b0d0a6d96cd68b06fdd5cbdf2958",
"text": "This is great. Thanks! So, just assuming a fund happened to average out to libor plus 50 for a given year, would applying that rate to the notional value of the index swaps provide a reasonable estimate of the drag an ETF investor would experience due to the cost associated with the index swaps? For instance, applying this to the hypothetical I linked to in the original question, they assumed fund assets of $100M with 2x leverage achieved through $85M of S&P500 stocks, $25M of S&P500 futures, and a notional value of the S&P500 swaps at $90M. So the true costs to an ETF investor would be: expense ratio + commissions on the $85M of S&P500 holdings + costs associated with $25M of futures contracts + costs associated with the $90M of swaps? And the costs associated with the $90M of swaps might be roughly libor plus 50?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e56536646a6bb78b874992c3447e0b7",
"text": "Thanks for your reply. I’m not familiar with the term “Held-For-Trading Security”. My securities are generally held as collateral against my shorts. To clarify, I am just trying to track the “money in” and “money out” entries in my account for the shorts I write. The transaction is relatively straight forward, except there is a ton of information attached! In simple terms, for the ticker CSR and short contract CSRUQ8, the relevant entries look something like this: There are no entries for expiries. I need to ensure that funds are available for future margin calls and assignments. The sale side using covered calls is as involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08195dbfa4527437a69f5a81e359ea3e",
"text": "Yes, you've got it right. The change in price is less meaningful as the instrument is further from the price of the underlying. As the delta moves less, the gamma is much less. Gamma is to delta as acceleration is to speed. Speed is movement relative to X, and acceleration is rate of change in speed. Delta is movement relative to S, and gamma is the rate of change in delta. Delta changes quickly when it is around the money, which is another way of saying gamma is higher. Delta is the change of the option price relative to the change in stock price. If the strike price is near the market price, then the odds of being in or out of the money could appear to be changing very quickly - even going back and forth repeatedly. Gamma is the rate of change of the delta, so these sudden lurches in pricing are by definition the gamma. This is to some extent a little mundane and even obvious. But it's a useful heuristic for analyzing prices and movement, as well as for focusing analyst attention on different pricing aspects. You've got it right. If delta is constant (zero 'speed' for the change in price) then gamma is zero (zero 'acceleration').",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d2a83f600d6376e069066778242cc300
|
Is debt almost always the cause of crashes and recessions?
|
[
{
"docid": "c07159e245303172793305c3a1d8a2be",
"text": "While debt increases the likelihood and magnitude of a crash, speculation, excess supply and other market factors can result in crashes without requiring excessive debt. A popular counter example of crashes due to speculation is 16th century Dutch Tulip Mania. The dot com bubble is a more recent example of a speculative crash. There were debt related issues for some companies and the run ups in stock prices were increased by leveraged traders, but the actual crash was the result of failures of start up companies to produce profits. While all tech stocks fell together, sound companies with products and profits survive today. As for recessions, they are simply periods of time with decreased economic activity. Recessions can be caused by financial crashes, decreased demand following a war, or supply shocks like the oil crisis in the 1970's. In summary, debt is simply a magnifier. It can increase profits just as easily as can increase losses. The real problems with crashes and recessions are often related to unfounded faith in increasing value and unexpected changes in demand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "645ffcd5f477c364552f62afc998402d",
"text": "\"The statement can be true, but isn't a general rule. Crashes and recessions are two different things. A crash is when the market rapidly revalues something when prices are out of equilibrium, whether it be stocks, a commodity or even a service. When the internet was new, nobody knew how to design webpages, so web page designers were in huge demand and commanded insane price premiums. I literally had college classmates billing real companies $200+/hr for marginal web skills. Eventually, the market \"\"clued up\"\" and that industry collapsed overnight. Another example of a crash from the supply point of view was the discovery of silver in the western US during the 19th century -- these discoveries increased the supply of the commodity to the point that silver coin eroded in value and devastated small family farms, who mostly dealt in silver currency. Recessions are often linked to crashes, but you don't need a crash to have a recession. Basically, during a recession, trade and industrial activity drop. The economy operates in cycles, and the euphoria and over-optimistic projections of a growing or booming economy lead to periods of reduced growth where the economy essentially reorganizes itself. Capital is a (if not the) key element of the economic cycle -- it's a catalyst that makes things happen. Debt is one form of capital -- it's not good, not bad. Generally cheap capital (ie. low interest rates) bring economic growth. Why? If I can borrow at 4%, I can then perform some sort of economic activity (bake bread, make computers, assemble cars, etc) that will earn myself 6, 8 or 10% on the dollar. When interest rates go up, economic activity slows, because the higher cost of credit increases the risk of losing money on an investment. The downside of cheap capital is that risk taking gets too easy and you can run into situations like the $2M ranch houses in California. The downside of expensive/tight capital is that it gets harder for businesses to operate and economic activity slows down. The effects of either extreme cascade and snowball.\"",
"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": "e35a68f6566711783b486d9bc1f8496e",
"text": "A lack of trust in the regulator can also stop everyone trading. If you don’t believe the bank notes you are getting paid with are real, why do any work?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "41ffb7be0749b4171352551b6bcd46bc",
"text": "\"There was a time when government policy was actually pretty damn smart. There were a range of \"\"automatic stabilizers\"\" that kicked in when there was a recession and they had a fast and large impact. It wasn't until Reagan that we started to chip away at those as well as go into a perpetual debt stimulus posture. These two actions helped to prime the system for an inevitable \"\"large\"\" shock. Even now, after one of the longest expansions in history we're STILL running a substantial deficit. And as such the appetite to expand it when the next recession hits will be diminished (as it was during the great recession when we really needed 3 trillion in stimulus spending and got less than 1).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4595c4e33035d108c772b10d26fa5b",
"text": "It depends on why the stocks crashed. If this happened because interest rates shot up, bonds will suffer also. On the other hand, stocks could be crashing because economic growth (and hence earnings) are disappointing. This pulls down interest rates and lifts bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8f6e63d5633a6b93d55ac418d50aa71",
"text": "Typically the debt is held by individuals, corporations and investment funds, not by other countries. In cases where substantial amounts are held by other countries, those countries are typically not in debt themselves (e.g. China has huge holdings of US Treasuries). If the debts were all cancelled, then the holders of the debt (as listed above) would lose out badly and the knock-on effects on the economy would be substantial. Also, governments that default tend to find it harder to borrow money again in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a53203e93e54c64b01441646a3c92d95",
"text": "\"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker). You may also have heard them described as \"\"leverage\"\". It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one). As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be \"\"bad\"\" debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e82dc8fadcfa9887733a3d37adfb011",
"text": "Incredible article, tons of data. Thank you! It does answer the above posters question if you're willing to read through. It provides data with and without 'revolving debt'. Side note; interesting to see how age and income trend. Debt increasing during the family-middle aged years, and during the peak income earning years. I'd say you want these credit card debt lower overall and on average; but with the distribution it may be sustainable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f66a841d1b8220b8ac3b9817ba46358",
"text": "Isn't it clear to everyone that something that isn't measured by economists yet is going horribly wrong in the US since they started with the debt bing? I know so many people with no savings whatsoever and just hanging on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e50170e3079427d32863a48ed4f6907",
"text": "I was being sarcastic. Student loan crash is a major circle jerk in some Financial subs If anything, it's more likely to manifest itself as OP described. Economic growth is going to be lower is a substantial portion of the populus is servicing debt than consuming goods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfaeffe85aafea3a5e7818563474d004",
"text": "Since 2008, when it all came crashing down, I read a variety of solid data sources that said this asset bubble and mortgage/HELOCs were going to reset (blow up) in slow motion for years, maybe decades. Nothing changed from that time. This has been happening for hundreds of years from what I understand now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc36975d7683f568850949230c160c80",
"text": "By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d366215b375cef0820dc85e6d867f191",
"text": "I agree that the cause of the crash can make a huge difference in the effect on the bond market. Here's a few other possibilities: All that to say that there's no definitive answer as to how the bond market will respond to an equity crash. Bonds are much more highly correlated to equities lately, but that could be due to much lower interest rates pushing more of the risk of bonds to the credit worthiness of the issuer, increasing correlation.",
"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": "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": "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": "0d2b6fbe48101ebb881deb9bc368cca2",
"text": "Inflation is bad for people with lots of cash assets. It's good for debtors, particularly debtors with unsecured debt.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9b1bef2377f681bfa5417551f9ccf4ab
|
Is keeping track of your money and having a budget the same thing?
|
[
{
"docid": "ee510b366ce1f9f90801a38b00b1aefc",
"text": "A budget is a plan for spending money in the future. Tracking spending is only looking at what happened in the past. Many people only track their spending, a proper budget can be key to achieving financial goals. You might earn enough and not spend frivolously enough that you aren't hamstrung by lack of a budget, but if you have specific financial goals, odds are you'll be more successful at achieving them by budgeting rather than only tracking spending. I'm a fan of zero-sum budgets, where every dollar is allocated to a specific bucket ahead of time. Here's a good write-up on zero-sum budgets: How and Why to Use a Zero-Sum Budget",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57c1187f6f4dbb66379c306eff33bdef",
"text": "The two are closely related. A budget is a detailed plan for how to spend. Expense tracking is a tool to analyze your previous spending performance. Creating a plan for how to spend your money without any record of your previous spending--is an empty promise to yourself that you will never follow up on. Did I stay within my budget? Doesn't matter, I didn't track the spending anyway. Even if you do plan to track your performance, if you have not previously done so, you won't have a good basis for how much to expect in each category. Most people have a general idea of how much they have spent and many budgets are formed based on that general intuition, but they are often surprised when they track how every penny is spent and look at the totals from month to month and over years. By actually seeing how much has been spent it's easier to pick the big financial drains and target them for reduction, if your desire is more savings, for example. I know people who keep a close eye on what they spend each month, but they don't allocate money in categories for the next month. They don't perform as well on reducing spending, but they often don't care. They feel like they make enough and they save enough, so why worry? I also know people who create an unrealistic budget each month because they haven't done a good job tracking their previous spending. They know what the monthly bills are, but they don't account well for variable or cyclical expenses like repairs, Christmas, etc. Both tools are essential for maximizing your own personal finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1406719d95ff278f1cb5ba03b6d36915",
"text": "\"What you are doing is neither one. You are simply watching to make sure you don't overdraw, which itself suggests you might be living hand to mouth and not saving. Keeping track of your money and budgeting are useful tools which help people get on top of their money. Which tends to have the effect of allowing you to save. How much did you spend on groceries last month? Eating out? Gas? If you were \"\"keeping track of your money\"\", you could say immediately what you spent, and whether that is above or below average, and why. How much do you plan to spend in the next 3 months on gas, groceries, eating out? If you knew the answer to that question, then you would have a \"\"budget\"\". And if those months go by, and your budget proves to have been accurate, or educates you as to what went wrong so you can learn and fix it... then your budget is a functioning document that is helping you master your money. Certainly the more powerful of the two is the \"\"keeping track\"\", or accounting of what has happened to you so far. It's important that you keep track of every penny without letting stuff \"\"slip through the cracks\"\". Here you can use proper accounting techniques and maybe accounting software, just like businesses do where they reconcile their accounting against their bank statements and wallet cash. I shortcut that a little. I buy gift cards for McDonalds, Panera, Starbucks, etc. and buy my meals with those. That way, I only have one transaction to log, $40 - McDonalds gift card instead of a dozen little meals. It works perfectly fine since I know all that money went to fast food. A little more dangerous is that I treat wallet cash the same way, logging say two monthly entries of $100 to cash rather than 50 little transactions of left $1 tip at restaurant. This only works because cash is a tiny part of my overall expenditures - not worth accounting. If it added up to a significant part, I'd want accounting on that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87ff9493c12684fd4f58b6a01cee10ed",
"text": "\"A budget is a predetermined plan for spending allocated funds to a fixed set of categories according to a schedule. If by, \"\"Keeping track of your money\"\" you mean you are only recording your spending to see on what it is being spent and when, then the answer is no. A budget has constraints on three things: Schedule: The mortgage has to be paid at the 1st of the month with a 2 day grace period. Amount: The mortgage payment is 1500.00 Category: The mortgage. Tracking your money would be as follows: 10/5/2016: $25 for a video game. 10/5/2016: $129.99 for two automobile tires. 10/6/2016: $35.25 for luncheon. I didn't like him! Why did I blow this money? 10/7/2016: nothing spent...yoohoo! 10/8/2016: Payday, heck yeah! I'm financially solvent YET AGAIN! How do I do it?! See the difference?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "54572d665f17daa6265547ad4047434a",
"text": "\"Money management is data-driven. You've been operating on \"\"how you feel\"\" and \"\"what should be\"\", and that's why it hasn't been working. First you collect data on how you actually are spending money. Record every expenditure and categorize what it was used for. Go back 6-12 months if you can. You don't need blistering detail, in fact I adjusted my lifestyle to make that easy. Fast food meals, movie tickets, USB cables, anything too small to bother recording, I just pay cash for that. Everything else: check, ACH or credit card. It is not excessive to do it in Quickbooks or similar if you know the app. Whatever is most efficient for you. Now you have a log of what you've been spending on what in a time oeriod, and a log of your income. Congratulations, you have a \"\"Profit & Loss Statement\"\", a basic financial planning tool. Now you can look at it accurately, decide if the money you are spending in each department brings the value and joy that fits the expenditure, and change what you want. You may decide you'd rather save $1000/mo than run a $200/mo deficit. Changing is simply coming up with different numbers that you think are achievable. Congratulations, you have a budget or spending plan. Again, data driven. The point is, your spending plan is based on your actual experience with past expenditures, not blind-guessing. Then, go out and make it happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec13e0b91f191cd39a8984f1b9cf65aa",
"text": "Get on a written budget at the BEGINNING of the month. If you dont write down where your money goes BEFORE you spend it, you have no way of keeping track of it. I couldn't do a thing until I got on a written budget but now that I am, I've paid off $10,000 in 7 months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08ce38aafaf9fbec87735e5eb5c28727",
"text": "\"I'm reminded of a conversation I had regarding food. I used the word 'diet' and got pushback, as I meant it in sense of 'what one eats'. That's what a diet is, what you eat in an average week, month, year. That list has no hidden agenda unless you want it to. If your finances are in good shape, debt under control, savings growing, etc, a budget is more of an observation than a constraint. In the same way that my bookshelf tells you a lot about who I am, books on finance, math, my religion, along with some on English and humor, my budget will also tell you what my values are. Edit - In a recent speech, regarding Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton said \"\"He has a saying: ‘Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value.’ \"\" - nearly exactly my thoughts on this. For the average person, a budget helps to reign in the areas where spending is too high. $500/mo eating out? For the couple hacking away at $30k in credit card debt, that would be an obvious place to cut back. If this brings you happiness, there's little reason to cut back. The budget becomes a reflection of your priorities, and if, at some point in the future, you need to cut back, you'll have a good understanding of where the money is going.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "770b55a96711bfa89c581bb4fd39eeae",
"text": "You don't. My budget for the year takes my gross income and nets out tax, spending, etc to account for every dollar. My assets (and the target of the savings during the year) are a balance sheet item. The sum already there isn't part of each year's budget.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edcdae945b83a18c7c90645115ed8420",
"text": "\"What you are describing sounds a lot like the way we handle our household budget. This is possible, but quite difficult to do with an Excel spreadsheet. It is much easier to do with dedicated budgeting software designed for this purpose. When choosing personal budgeting software, I've found that the available packages fall in two broad categories: Some packages take what I would call a proactive approach: You enter in your bank account balances, and assign your money into spending categories. When you deposit your paycheck, you do the same thing: you add this money to your spending categories. Then when you spend money, you assign it to a spending category, and the software keeps track of your category balances. At any time, you can see both your bank balances and your spending category balances. If you need to spend money in a category that doesn't have any more money, you'll need to move money from a different category into that one. This approach is sometimes called the envelope system, because it resembles a digital version of putting your cash into different envelopes with different purposes. A few examples of software in this category are You Need a Budget (YNAB), Mvelopes, and EveryDollar. Other packages take more of a reactive approach: You don't bother assigning a job to the money already in your bank account. Instead, you just enter your monthly income and put together a spending plan. As you spend money, you assign the transactions to a spending category, and at the end of the month, you can see what you actually spent vs. what your plan was, and try to adjust your next budget accordingly. Software that takes this approach includes Quicken and Mint.com. I use and recommend the proactive approach, and it sounds from your question like this is the approach that you are looking for. I've used several different budgeting software packages, and my personal recommendation is for YNAB, the software that we currently use. I don't want this post to sound too much like a commercial, but I believe it will do everything you are looking for. One of the great things about the proactive approach, in my opinion, is how credit card accounts are handled. Since your spending category balances only include real money actually sitting in an account (not projected income for the month), when you spend money out of a category with your credit card, the software deducts the money from the spending category immediately, as it is already spent. The credit card balance goes negative. When the credit card bill comes and you pay it, this is handled in the software as an account transfer from your checking account to your credit card account. The money in the checking account is already set aside for the purpose of paying your credit card bill. Dedicated budgeting software generally has a reconcile feature that makes verifying your bank statements very easy. You just enter the date of your bank statement and the balance, and then the software shows you a list of the transactions that fall in those dates. You can check each one against the transactions on the statement, editing the ones that aren't right and adding any that are missing from the software. After everything checks out, the software marks the transactions as verified, so you can easily see what has cleared and what hasn't. Let me give you an example to clarify, in response to your comment. This example is specific to YNAB, but other software using the same approach would work in a similar way. Let's say that you have a checking account and a credit card account. Your checking account, named CHECKING, has $2,000 in it currently. Your credit card currently has nothing charged on it, because you've just paid your bill and haven't used it yet this billing period. YNAB reports the balance of your credit card account (we'll call this account CREDITCARD), as $0. Every dollar in CHECKING is assigned to a category. For example, you've got $200 in \"\"groceries\"\", $100 in \"\"fast food\"\", $300 in \"\"rent\"\", $50 in \"\"phone\"\", $500 in \"\"emergency fund\"\", etc. If you add up the balance of all of your categories, you'll get $2,000. Let's say that you've written a check to the grocery store for $100. When you enter this in YNAB, you tell it the name of the store, the account that you paid with (CHECKING), and the category that the expense belongs to (groceries). The \"\"groceries\"\" category balance will go down from $200 to $100, and the CHECKING account balance will go down from $2,000 to $1,900. Now, let's say that you've spent $10 on fast food with your credit card. When you enter this in YNAB, you tell it the name of the restaurant, the account that you paid with (CREDITCARD), and the category that the expense belongs to (fast food). YNAB will lower the \"\"fast food\"\" category balance from $100 to $90, and your CREDITCARD account balance will go from $0 to $-10. At this point, if you add up all the category balances, you'll get $1,890. And if you add up your account balances, you'll also get $1,890, because CHECKING has $1,900 and CREDITCARD has $-10. If you get your checking account bank statement at this time, the account balance of $1,900 should match the statement and you'll see the payment to the grocery store, assuming the check has cleared. And if the credit card bill comes now, you'll see the fast food purchase and the balance of $-10. When you write a check to pay this credit card bill, you enter this in YNAB as an account transfer of $10 from CHECKING to CREDITCARD. This transfer does not affect any of your category balances; they remain the same. But now your CHECKING account balance is down to $1,890, and CREDITCARD is back to $0. This works just as well whether you have one checking account and one credit card, or 2 checking accounts, 2 savings accounts, and 3 credit cards. When you want to spend some money, you look at your category balance. If there is money in there, then the money is available to spend somewhere in one of your accounts. Then you pick an account you want to pay with, and, looking at the account balance, if there isn't enough money in that account to pay it, you just need to move some money from another account into that one, or pick a different account. When you pay for an expense with a credit card, the money gets deducted from the category balances immediately, and is no longer available to spend on something else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee3149b12c0eb37a8beb933962a0205",
"text": "I recently made the switch to keeping track of my finance (Because I found an app that does almost everything for me). Before, my situation was fairly simple: I was unable to come up with a clear picture of how much I was spending vs saving (altho I had a rough idea). Now I here is what it changes: What I can do now: Is it useful ? Since I don't actually need to save more than I do (I am already saving 60-75% of my income), 1) isn't important. Since I don't have any visibility on my personal situation within a few years, 2) and 3) are not important. Conclusion: Since I don't actually spend any time building theses informations I am happy to use this app. It's kind of fun. If I did'nt had that tool... It would be a waste of time for me. Depends on your situation ? Nb: the app is Moneytree. Works only in Japan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59001b744c03bd891f700de8949fd673",
"text": "\"First of all, kudos for thinking about budgeting at 21 years old. So many people don't plan with their money, and years later wonder where it all went. You are doing a lot of things right with your budget. You've got saving goals, namely your next car and a down payment on a house. You are saving almost 20% of your income for retirement, which is amazing. I like the luxury fund, too. It is good to put some money aside that you can spend on whatever you want, guilt free, because you know that everything important is already planned for. When it comes to budgeting, one thing to remember is that your budget does not have to be perfect, and it is not set in stone. If you find that your amount for \"\"living costs\"\" (which I'm assuming includes things like food, utilities, and rent) is too low, you can allocate more money to it and reduce something else. There is no need to feel bad if you end up having to change some things around in the budget. Congratulations on being debt free! I would encourage you to stay out of debt. Keep the credit cards paid in full each month, and save up for your next car so you can pay cash for that, too. Another saving goal that I would recommend adding to your budget would be an emergency fund. This is basically a pile of cash that is available to you in case something unexpected and urgent comes up that you haven't planned for. By having the emergency fund in place, you won't be forced to go into debt due to an emergency. The amount recommended is usually 3 to 6 months' worth of your expenses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65c0e3b68efbc4fd3788f304e00d70b7",
"text": "\"I'm currently using You Need A Budget for this. It lets you track spending my category and \"\"save\"\" money in particular accounts from month to month. They also have some strong opinions about how one should manage one's cashflow, so check it out to see if it'll work for you. It's neither web-based nor free, but the licensing terms are very reasonable.\"",
"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": "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": "482c834cf825bd1f559658f73a034ad2",
"text": "In a word: budgeting. In order to have money left over at the end of the month, you need to be intentional about how you spend it. That is all a budget is: a plan for spending your money. Few people have the discipline and abundance of income necessary to just wing it and not overspend. By making a plan at home ahead of time, you can decide how much you will spend on food, entertainment, etc, and ensure you have enough money left over for things like rent/mortgage and utility bills, and still have enough for longer-term savings goals like a car purchase or retirement. If you don't have a plan, it's simply not reasonable to expect yourself to know if you have enough money for a Venti cup as you drive past the Starbucks. A good plan will allow you to spend on things that are important to you while ensuring that you have enough to meet your obligations and long-term goals. Another thing a budget will do for you is highlight where your problem is. If your problem is that you are spending too much money on luxuries, the budget will show you that. It might also reveal to you that your rent is too high, or your energy consumption is too great. On the other hand, you might realize after budgeting that your spending is reasonable, but your income is too low. In that case, you should focus on spending more of your time working or looking for a better paying job.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbc830aab6f767674a4253f0588992bc",
"text": "\"Here is what we do. We use YNAB to do our budgeting and track our expenses. Anything that gets paid electronically is tracked to the penny. It really needs to be, because you want your transaction records to match your bank's transaction records. However, for cash spending, we only count the paper money, not the coins. Here is how it works: If I want a Coke out of a vending machine for 75 cents, and I put a dollar bill in and get a quarter back as change, I record that as a $1.00 expense. If, instead, I put 3 quarters in to get the Coke, I don't record that expense at all. Spending coins is \"\"free money.\"\" We do this mainly because it is just easier to keep track of. I can quickly count the cash in my wallet and verify that it matches the amount that YNAB thinks I have in my wallet, and I don't need to worry about the coins. Coins that are in my car to pay for parking meters or coins in the dish on my dresser don't need to be counted. This works for us mainly because we don't do a whole lot of cash spending, so the amount we are off just doesn't add up to a significant portion of our spending. And, again, bank balances are exact to the penny.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abdc0f634367fb8d5f4ae7281c1843c7",
"text": "Good question, very well asked! The key here is that you need to find a solution that works for you two without an overt amount of effort. So in a sense it is somewhat behavior driven, but it is also technology driven. My wife and I use spreadsheets for both checking account management and budgeting. A key time saver is that we have a template sheet that gets copied and pasted, then modified for the current month. Typically 90% of the stuff is the same and each month requires very little modification. This is one of my problems with EveryDollar. I have to enter everything each and every month. We also have separate checking accounts and responsibility for different areas of the family expenses. Doing this risks that we act as roommates, but we both clearly understand the money in one persons account equally belongs to the other and during hard times had to make up for shortfalls on the part of the other. Also we use cash for groceries, eating out, and other day to day expenses. So we don't have a great need to track expenses or enter transactions. That is what works for us, and it takes us very little time to manage our money. The budget meeting normally lasts less than a half hour and that includes goal tracking. We kind of live by the 80/20 principle. We don't see a value in tracking where every dime went. We see more value in setting and meeting larger financial goals like contributing X amount to retirement and things of that nature. If we overspent a bit at Walgreens who cares provided the larger goals are meant and we do not incur debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33566963de30c4b510e893fd513777f9",
"text": "Both Credit Card and Mortgage work on same principle. The interest is calculated on the remaining balance. As the balance reduces the interest reduces. The Mortgage schedule is calculated with the assumption that you would be paying a certain amount over a period of years. However if you pay more, then the balance becomes less, and hence the subsequent interest also reduces. This means you would pay the loan faster and also pay less then originaly forecasted. The other type of loan, typically personal loans / auto loans in older days worked on fixed schedule. This means that you need to pay principal + Pre Determined interest. This is then broken into equal monthly installment. However in such a schedule, even if you pay a lumpsum amount in between, the total amount you need to pay remains same. Only the tenor reduces.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bb718a4b47000594f78c65fa8a33aee",
"text": "Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f4702379f2ea993f5c79b7ab0660b2cf
|
How does a big lottery winner cash his huge check risk-free?
|
[
{
"docid": "dffcb5eda0d2611e3115fcc4a6af855f",
"text": "If the funds are deposited into a noninterest-bearing account, they will be covered by FDIC insurance regardless of the amount (However, this extended coverage may not be valid after Dec. 31, 2012): On November 9, 2010, the FDIC issued a Final Rule implementing section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that provides for unlimited insurance coverage of noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. Beginning December 31, 2010, through December 31, 2012, all noninterest-bearing transaction accounts are fully insured, regardless of the balance of the account, at all FDIC-insured institutions. (Source: http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/changes.html)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee4f001deb30303964cbc1f65c10cfb3",
"text": "You have a few options: Personally, I would cash the check at my broker and buy a mixture of US Government and New York Tax-Exempt securities until I figured out what to do with it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "074ea5e57c752ea120f2017f3eceb057",
"text": "\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7974d3ee3f0a0b0419c5ad0e5b586466",
"text": "\"Looking at some large lotto games out there, it seems that the lump sum (cash) option comes in at anywhere from about 50 to 70 percent of the jackpot amount (sum of annual payouts, typically over 20 to 30 years). I'm a fan of the phrase \"\"money today is better than money tomorrow.\"\" There's no telling how laws will change, taxes will change, if inflation will skyrocket, if you'll die early, if you or a family member will encounter a life-changing event, etc. By taking the lump sum option you trade a percentage of the winnings for the risk of the future unknowns. How much are those unknowns worth to you? The tax implications are something else to consider. In your example of a \"\"small\"\" jackpot with $50,000 annual payouts, it's likely that you could still avoid the highest tax bracket each year, whereas taking the lump sum would be taxed at the highest rate (35% of the amount above $373k, for a single filer in 2010). However, this might not make much of a difference for large jackpots with higher annual payouts. With the lump sum option, you also have a greater potential of investment returns (and losses) since you can put all the money to work for you right away. It also allows you to purchase larger assets sooner, if that's something that interests you. In the end, I'd say the reduced risk and the higher return potential of the lump sum option is well worth the reduced payout. I'd also suggest not playing the lottery :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ab045a99c76a8f6c9dac6c9730b8bab",
"text": "Yes, but it's a matter of paper trail and lifestyle. Your $600K guy may get questioned when he makes the deposit, but would show the record of having that money elsewhere. People buy cars with cash (a check) all the time. The guy filing a tax return claiming little to no income or no return at all, is more likely to get flagged than the $100K+ earning couple who happened to be able to save to buy their $25K car every 10 years with cash. On reading the article, the bank had its own concerns. The guy who was trying to withdraw the money was elderly, and the bank seemed pretty concerned to make sure he wasn't about to be scammed. It may not be spelled out as such, but a custodian of one's money does have an obligation to not be party to a potential scam, and the very request for such a huge sum of money in cash is a red flag.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd8d9237bd2d0276394dd62710a65540",
"text": "Will 2 millions dollars check to be cash? Will a bank convert a check to cash? In my experience, no. Even for small checks. Unless you happen to have a VERY good relationship with your banker (read as: have an existing large bank balance.) The exception is if you go to the bank the check is drawn on. But even then, I doubt they'll cash a $2M dollar check. Can you deposit a $2M dollar check? Most definitely. How long will 2 millions dollars check to be cash? Depends on your bank's policies, relationship with you, and the origination of the check. You'll need to talk to the exact bank in question to find out. Some guidelines from my own experiences: Out of country checks will take quite awhile, say 4 weeks, even for trivial amounts. I'm not sure what a $2M size would do. Beyond that situation, it will likely depend on whether you have more money than the check's worth in your bank accounts. If so, they may be willing to give you cash in a few days. Or if you only want some of the money as cash in a few days, that might be possible. If the bank couldn't cash for him, will the bank give him some of cash for example, $500,000 for now, and the rest wait to be cash at later time like 24 hours or 1 week? Unless you already have a lot of money in your relationship with the bank, I think it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY they will let you have ANY of the money in 24 hours. You MIGHT get some of it in a week. The issue will be that such a large check will be viewed as having a high chance of being fraudulent, so they will want to be exceptionally conservative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ea22f3848d931782d35dccdbe5fdeed",
"text": "The only certain way is to have the issuer confirm it. You'd think there would be a better way, but no there isn't. I suggest you read this story about what can happen even if you are the innocent victim trying to cash a fraudulent Cashier's Check. The consequences included some jail time and huge attorney fees for this unlucky person.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7d4ec3f4b46b3085ba58507580e1240",
"text": "If I needed a safe-ish way to bank a lot of cash in vegas I'd exchange for high value chips at the local gambling establishments. I have to imagine that's being done already for other less than legal enterprises.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58654a927a52b3436e6c0ccfaf535765",
"text": "Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b3bd63f5d55ca2eb550414c3182b710",
"text": "Setting aside for the moment the very relevant issue of whether you need the full amount quickly, I'll just tackle comparing which option gives you to maximum amount of money (in terms of real dollars). The trick is, unless you think inflation will suddenly reverse itself or stop entirely (not likely), $50K today is worth a LOT more than $50K in 20 years. If you don't believe me, consider that just 30 years ago the average price for a mid-level new car was around $3k. When you grandfather says he got a burger for a nickel, he isn't talking about 2010 dollars. So, how do you account for this? Well, the way financial people and project managers do it to estimate how much to pay today for $1 at some point in the future is through a net present value (NPV) calculation. You can find a calculator here. In your question, you gave some numbers for the payout, but not the lump sum prize amount. Going solely on what you have provided, I calculate that you should take the lump sum if it is greater than $766,189.96 which is the net present value of 20 years of $50K Payments assuming 3% annual inflation, which is fairly a fairly reasonable number given history. However, if you think the out-of-control Gov't spending is going to send inflation through the roof (possible, but not a given), then you almost certainly would want the lump sum. I suppose in that scenario you might want the lump sum anyway because if the Govt starts filching on their obligations, doing it to a small number of lottery winners might be politically more popular than cutting other programs that affect a large number of voters.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a3ec9b0c7870ef5eef3a926d09037f6",
"text": "\"There are no risk-free high-liquidity instruments that pay a significant amount of interest. There are some money-market accounts around that pay 1%-2%, but they often have minimum balance or transaction limits. Even if you could get 3%, on a $4K balance that would be $120 per year, or $10 per month. You can do much better than that by just going to $tarbucks two less times per month (or whatever you can cut from your expenses) and putting that into the savings account. Or work a few extra hours and increase your income. I appreciate the desire to \"\"maximize\"\" the return on your money, but in reality increasing income and reducing expenses have a much greater impact until you build up significant savings and are able to absorb more risk. Emergency funds should be highly liquid and risk-free, so traditional investments aren't appropriate vehicles for them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "963bb09f1dcdfde66c39c1c8ecf380be",
"text": "The billion dollar jackpot is a sunk cost, a loss for prior bettors. If you had $250M and could buy every ticket combination, you'd be betting that not more than 4 other tickets will win on the next drawing. Even if 5 won, you'd have all the second place, third place, etc tickets, and would probably break even at worst. Forget this extreme case. If I gave you a game where you had a chance to bet $100,000 for a 1 in 9 chance to win a million dollars, would you do it? Clearly, the odds are in your favor, right? But, for this kind of money, you'd probably pass. There's a point where the market itself seems to reflect a set of probable outcomes and can be reduced to gambling. I've written about using options to do this very thing, yet, even in my writing, I call it gambling. I'm careful not to confuse the two (investing and gambling, that is.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51863cda125d76edb58e5d99691c7392",
"text": "\"As you've observed, when you're dealing with that amount of money, you're going to have to give up FDIC guarantees. That means that keeping the money in a bank account carries some risk with it: if that particular bank goes bust, you could lose most of your money. There are a few options to stretch the FDIC limit such as CDARS, but likely can't handle your hypothetical $800 million. So, what's a lucky winner to do? There are a few options, including treasury securities, money market funds, and more general capital investments such as stocks and bonds. Which one(s) are best depend on what your goals are, and what kind of risks you find acceptable. Money in the bank has two defining characteristics: its value is very stable, and it is liquid (meaning you can spend it very easily, whenever you want, without incurring costs). Treasury securities and money market funds each focus on one of these characteristics. A treasury security is a piece of paper (or really, an electronic record) saying that the US Federal Government owes you money and when they will pay it back. They are very secure in that the government has never missed a payment, and will move heaven and earth to make sure they won't miss one in the future (even taking into account recent political history). You can buy and sell them on an open market, either through a broker or directly on the Treasury's website. The major downside of these compared to a bank account is that they're not as liquid as cash: you own specific amounts of specific kinds of securities, not just some number of dollars in an account. The government will pay you guaranteed cash on specified dates; if you need cash on different dates, you will need to sell the securities in the open market and the price will be subject to market fluctuations. The other \"\"cash-like\"\" option is money market funds. These are a type of mutual fund offered by financial companies. These funds take your money and spread it out over a wide variety of very low risk, very short term investments, with the goal of ensuring that the full value will never go down and is available at any time. They are very liquid: you can typically transfer cash quickly and easily to a normal bank account, write checks directly, and sometimes even use \"\"online bill pay\"\"-like features. They have a very good track record for stability, too, but no one is guaranteeing them against something going terribly wrong. They are lower risk than a (non-FDIC-insured) bank account, since the investments are spread out across many institutions. Beyond those two somewhat \"\"cash-like\"\" options, there are of course other, more general investments such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. These other options trade away some degree of stability, liquidity, or both, in exchange for better expected returns.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37744cb356d487c24fefaa8b68df185c",
"text": "Not really. A bank will honor a million dollar check if there are funds there to let it clear.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a899e12d589d25e5d3cb4db5cd2bb4a6",
"text": "\"Document how you came to have the stuff in the first place. First to defend against potential government inquiry; and second to establish that you held the asset more than one year, so you qualify for long-term capital gains rate. I wouldn't sell it privately all at once, if you can avoid it. If you can prove you held it more than a year, you should pay the long-term capital gains tax rate, which is fairly low. You'll keep most of it. A huge windfall often goes very badly. People don't change their financial habits, burn through their winnings shockingly fast, overspend it, and wind up deep in debt. At the end of the crazy train, their lives end up worse. That wasn't your question, but you'll do better if you're on guard for that, with good planning and a desire to invest it in things which give you deferred income in the future. That's the cooler thing, when your investments mean you don't have to go to work! I don't mean donate ALL of it to charity. But feel free. If you hold a security more than one year, and donate it to charity, you get a tax deduction for the appreciated value (even though the security didn't actually cost you that). (link) Do not convert the BTC to cash then donate the cash. Donate it as BTC. Your tax deduction works against your highest tax bracket. If you are paying in a 28% tax bracket (your next $100 of income has $28 tax), then for every $100 of charitable donation, you get $28 back on Federal. It does the same to state tax, and you also avoid the 10-15% capital gains tax because you didn't sell the securities. Do your 1040 both ways and note the difference.***** Your charitable deduction of appreciated securities is capped at 30% of AGI. Any excess will carryover and becomes a tax deduction for the next year, and it can carryover for several years. ** Use a donor-advised fund. If you have are donating more than $5000, you don't need to search for a charity that will take Bitcoin, and you also don't need to pick a charity now. Instead, open a special type of giving account called a Donor-Advised Fund. The DAF, itself, is a charity. It specializes in accepting complex donations and liquidating them into cash. The cash credits to your giving account. You take the tax deduction in the year you give to the DAF. Then, when you want to give to a charity, you tell the DAF to donate on your behalf***. You can tell them to give on your behalf anonymously, or merely conceal your address so you don't get the endless charity junk mail. The DAF lets you hold the money in index funds, so your \"\"charity nest egg\"\" can grow with the market. Mine has more than doubled thanks to the market. This money is no longer yours at this point; you can't give it back to yourself, only to licensed charities. The Fidelity Donor Advised Fund makes a big thing of taking Bitcoin, and I really like them. **** I love my DAF, and it has been a charitable-giving workhorse. It turns you into a philanthropist, and that changes you life in ways I cannot describe. Certainly makes me more level-headed about money. Lottery winner syndrome is just not a risk for me (partly because I'm now on the board of charities, and oversee an endowment.) Donating generally will reduce suspicion (criminals don't do that), but donating to a DAF even moreso. Since the DAF would have to return ill-gotten gains, they're involved. Their lawyers will back you up. The prosecutor is up against a billion dollar corporation instead of just you. With Fidelity particularly, Bitcoin is a crusade for them, and their lawyers know how to defend Bitcoin. A Fidelity DAF is a good play for that reason alone IMO. ** The gory details: Presumably you are donating to regular charities or a Donor Advised Fund, and these are \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". Since it's capital gains, you have a 30% limit. If your donation is more than 30% of AGI, or if you have carryover from last year, you use Worksheet 2 in Publication 526. You plug your donations into line 4, then the worksheet grinds through all the math and shows what part you deduct this year and what part you carryover to the next year. *** I specifically asked managers at two DAFs whether they were OK with someone donating a complex asset to the DAF, and immediately giving the entire cash amount to a charity. The DAF doesn't get any fees if you do that. They said not only are they OK with it, most of their donors do exactly that and most DAF accounts are empty. They make it on the 0.6% a year custodial fee on the other accounts, and charitable giving to them. Mind you, you can only donate to 501C3 type charities, what IRS calls \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". This actually protects you from donating to organizations who lie about their status. **** I'm not with Fidelity, but I am a satisfied DAF customer. The DAF funds its overhead by deducting 0.6% per year from your giving account. If you invest the funds in a mutual fund within the DAF, that investment pays the 0.08% to 1.5% expense ratio of the fund. I can live with that. ***** I just Excel'd the value of donating $100 of appreciated security instead of taking it as capital gains income. 28% Fed tax, 15% Fed cap gains, 8% state tax on both. Take the $100 as income, pay $23 in cap gains tax. Donate $100 in securities, the $23 tax goes away since you didn't sell it. Really. The $100 charitable deduction offsets $100 in income, also saving you $36 in regular income tax. Net tax savings $59. However you lost the $100! So you are net $41 poorer. It costs you $41 to donate $100 to charity. This gets better in higher brackets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8209f4c9de8d573f190b134f7b2fb0b",
"text": "\"What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short \"\"parking\"\" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do. Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2afdb7895ff858324e1611105b470a98",
"text": "\"Bad plan. This seems like a recipe for having your money taken away from you by CBP. Let me explain the biases which make it so. US banking is reliable enough for the common citizen, that everyone simply uses banks. To elaborate, Americans who are unbanked either can't produce simple identity paperwork; or they got an account but then got blacklisted for overdrawing it. These are problems of the poor, not millionaires. Outside of determined \"\"off the grid\"\" folks with political reasons to not be in the banking and credit systsm, anyone with money uses the banking system. Who's not a criminal, anyway. We also have strong laws against money laundering: turning cash (of questionable origin) into \"\"sanitized\"\" cash on deposit in a bank. The most obvious trick is deposit $5000/day for 200 days. Nope, that's Structuring: yeah, we have a word for that. A guy with $1 million cash, it is presumed he has no choice: he can't convert it into a bank deposit, as in this problem - note where she says she can't launder it. If it's normal for people in your country to haul around cash, due to a defective banking system, you're not the only one with that problem, and nearby there'll be a country with a good banking system who understands your situation. Deposit it there. Then retain a US lawyer who specializes in this, and follow his advice about moving the money to the US via funds transfer. Even then, you may have some explaining to do; but far less than with cash. (And keep in mind for those politically motivated off-the-financial-grid types, they're a bit crazy but definitely not stupid, live a cash life everyday, and know the law better than anybody. They would definitely consider using banks and funds transfers for the border crossing proper, because of Customs. Then they'll turn it into cash domestically and close the accounts.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f20b119435dc7ba0c27a33ff5b42b5a5",
"text": "If you've got millions in a wallet but only make 50k a year, the government will go after you for tax evasion if you ever try to spend a significant amount of it. You can never cash out, that's not clean money",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f10d7287e5a10fba9e58df46ad168d91
|
Lending to the bank
|
[
{
"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": "ed9675710736f4aa5511d789cf99fdf3",
"text": "The easiest way would be to set up a common savings account. Most of them pay some meager interest rate, and over one night it would be especially meager. A Certificate of Deposit is another way, but you'd have to lock the funds in for an extended period of time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ba18ba31775842e53398358765bef09d",
"text": "Construction loans have an entirely set of rules and factors than mortgages and that's hard to reconcile into one instrument. Also, I'm guessing the bank would be a bit shy about giving a commitment to a home loan before they have any information about how the construction process is going. There would have to be a ton of contingencies put into mortgage and they probably can't account for everything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6992373f1b09191f18ab3bef9dc26b8",
"text": "The bank will consider total of both parties income for the loan qualification. Provided both parties will be listed on the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d0da9039fa2a5ac7e3b29b1bc045a97",
"text": "I have a couple of questions regarding Bank Loans. 1.) can they ever trade above par? From my understanding, most get called due to refinancing. 2.) if a bank loan has a floor attached to it that's tied to LIBOR, say 100bps, and that floor is pierced, does the floor automatically disappear, or does that specific loan need to be refinanced before the floor can be done away with? Additionally, should an investor be more cautious when investing in a bank loan without a floor? With regard to the second half of my question, I would think an investor would demand a higher yield without the assurance of a floor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4777ce9064e80c707b0fc4fbf7440d7",
"text": "It's complicated. Really, there's no solid answer for your question. Everybody's risk tolerance and time horizon is going to be different. Those who can take on more risk can take on lower-grade C-G loans at Lending Club. Those with less risk tolerance should emphasize As and Bs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d58ba7d3f0ce9b53e8dbb7b38c4c24bf",
"text": "Large businesses are, in every model, considered to be less likely to default, and Lehman brothers etc notwithstanding, this is historically correct. However, this is still stupid, since the diversification of lending money to many small businesses is way better. This, in turn, is not mapped properly by the regulations on reserve capital. Tl;dr: Banks get punished by regulations if they lend money to small institutions instead of large ones.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41588ea0e3fb3c70179dae48f6a20e19",
"text": "#####&#009; ######&#009; ####&#009; [**History of banking**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History%20of%20banking): [](#sfw) --- >The __history of banking__ begins with the first prototype [banks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank) of [merchants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant) of the ancient world, which made [grain loans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan) to farmers and traders who carried goods between cities. This began around 2000 BC in [Assyria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria) and [Babylonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia). Later, in [ancient Greece](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece) and during the [Roman Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire), lenders based in temples made loans and added two important innovations: they accepted [deposits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit_account) and [changed money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_de_change). Archaeology from this period in [ancient China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#Ancient_China) and [India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India) also shows evidence of [money lending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan) activity. >==== >[**Image**](https://i.imgur.com/IWCAqkG.jpg) [^(i)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Balance_sheet_Mesopotamia_Louvre_AO6036.jpg) --- ^Interesting: [^Banking ^in ^India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_India) ^| [^History ^of ^banking ^in ^China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China) ^| [^History ^of ^banking ^in ^Bangladesh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_Bangladesh) ^| [^Banking ^in ^the ^United ^States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjk5935) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cjk5935)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46946a59368066db3f4d564bde1450c0",
"text": "When you borrow from a bank, there are secured loans, as with a mortgage, or unsecured lines of credit, usually a more reasonable amount of money, but also based on income. You just asked about a private loan. It depends on the person and your relationship. If you need money to pay the rent, you might not be the best person to lend money to. If you ask a friend or relative, they may lend you money without asking its purpose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1734b47658b6c0f6cfd1d294e434fef7",
"text": "Your basic assumption is incorrect. You don't normally go to a bank to borrow money to invest, but brokerages do it all the time. It is called trading on margin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fabd662cde5b0f83b0bc7e8c8080564",
"text": "\"Aside of \"\"don't lend money to friends\"\" a good idea is to have a written contract that states the sum, the due date, the interest (if any). Having the loan on paper makes it more real and harder to \"\"forget\"\". The third party is not necessary - anyone can have a bank loan for more than $10K by signing a contract with a bank without any third party.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a78fd2aca4643c9aea11ae2e930ab607",
"text": "Banks are not your friends, they are not performing services for you because they like you. They are a business, and they make money by borrowing money from you at low interest and loaning it out at higher interest. They are trying to persuade you to deposit more money (however briefly) in their bank so they can loan out more money. They are probably also counting on the fact that most folks won't go to the trouble of setting up accounts at multiple banks with the interlocking automatic transfers, in order to meet the required deposit threshold. That lets them save on the interest payments to consumers that are individually tiny, but significant in the aggregate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6441b2846cb858fac0043e741626b0d1",
"text": "You walk into the finance company with a written quote from the supplier for the equipment you want to buy. You then fill out forms and sign a promissory note. The finance company then writes out a check to the supplier for the amount of the quoted equipment. Usually you need to provide at least 3 things: They will require you to provide your social security number and sign a document allowing them to check your credit history which they will look up using the social security number. Note that banks will generally give better rates on a personal loan than a finance company. People usually only use finance companies when their credit is so bad that a bank will not loan them money. Heating and cooling companies that provide equipment will often loan the money to buy that equipment. As a point of advice, it is generally poor financial management to take out personal loans and may indicate a person that is wasting money or be in financial difficulties. For personal loan items (furniture, cars, clothing, jewelry, etc) you are far better off saving money to buy the item, not borrowing beyond your means. If you need a new furnace and it is an emergency, for example, if it were winter (which it is not) and your furnace could not be repaired, then that might justifiable. But borrowing money at a high rate to just upgrade a furnace or get a luxury like AC is unwise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587a65d963fc2a65049684b33ecee4f6",
"text": "My doubt is whether Govt./Reserve Bank of India gives any explicit incentives to banks to offer cheaper home loans ? Currently NO. In the past Loan against GOLD was considered priority sector lending [Loans to poor and agriculture etc]. Every Bank need to lead around 25% to priority sector. Hence quite a few Banks gave loans relatively cheaper to todays rate rather than giving it as Farm loan that almost never get recovered. It is no longer the case now as Loan against GOLD is not considered priority lending. If it were just demand/supply, I feel that gold loans should have been cheaper It is demand and supply. There are quite a few reasons for this;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "932a6bb74f8c695d3afa4ff3e828ce46",
"text": "In terms of operations, banks are indifferent to inflation. Short rates except right before a recession or near-recession are always lower than long rates, regardless of inflation level, assuming no quotas or price controls. Banks produce credit by borrowing short to lend long, so as long as short rates are lower than long rates, they can be expected to produce loans, again assuming no quotas or price controls. In short, from the banks' perspective, inflation does not affect their desire to produce credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65032b616f32fb25201624afb6712c76",
"text": "I think my main problem with this idea is that we'd be trading the boom bust lending cycle for the boom bust political cycle. The banks are pretty heavily regulated as it is, and putting all the power back in the hands of our government frightens me a little bit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5882323bf28393a37e36a1484db2f148",
"text": "i think keensian is right. krudeman is wrong. why was it anybody could get a loan from a bank to buy a house then during the bubble boom? u telling me there were that much savings and reserve in the system? m2 credit lead m1. banks can create money out of nothing by writing loans.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
050b74765bc7e7f01c9d8a58da7f1256
|
What's the best application, software or tool that can be used to track time?
|
[
{
"docid": "7dadf218cc5c6276c4b761fce9cd5425",
"text": "People rave about Basecamp by 37signals. The impressive part is all the add-ins you can get for it. There are add-ins for invoicing, billing, accounting, and time tracking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3b0ad05f4f11839a6d6c45a0480be9f",
"text": "Time Tracker I'm a software engineer and have been using this tool. It is free and has a good user interface. I believe it can very well be used by professional of other areas too. It does support the features that you're looking for regarding project and task tracking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c77381fb773ed6ce8484d1c26dc4212",
"text": "\"There are tonnes, and tonnes of things out there, but you have to be careful what you search for. Be specific about what you want. If you search for \"\"time sheet\"\" for example, you'll just get a bucket of stuff having to do with stylesheets, because there's more of that around. The most common type of small tool for tracking time is usually a timer-type thing that runs as a widget, gadget, or System Tray tool. You have to click it on, then off again, and the nice ones produce a usable output file. CSV, or XLS, or some such. There are tools that track what documents you have open, when you opened them, and when you closed them, and you can sort it out from there. They're a bit resource-heavy, so be careful if you have a low power system. Quickbooks has a little utility that will make file which can be imported into your accounting. Quickbooks is NOT for the average business person. You almost have to be a bookkeeper to get the most out of it. On the other hand, you can have a bookkeeper set it up for you, and at the end of the year your taxes are a one button affair. For Windows software I like to use the site snapfiles.com. It's always been reliable, the rating systems are pretty accurate, they mostly maintain their own copies of the software, they test for viruses, and the let you specify a \"\"freeware only\"\" search ;-) For Mac software I like versiontracker.com. If you're a massive freeware user, like me, sign up for an account, so you can receive alerts regarding updates, and such. Currently I do most of my computer-based organization on a Mac with piece of software by CircusPonies.com called NoteBook. There's a command to insert the time, date, or both, and I just use that when I have a need to record elapsed time. I have even run across (and I forget the name) a piece of software for tracking time on Windows, which had multiple timers which you could set so either they were allowed to run concurrently (lawyers), or only one would run at a time. Anyway… Personally I think freeware is fun, but be careful. It's still the wild frickin west out there. If you don't trust the site you're downloading from, scan it with your anti-virus software before you install it, create a Restore Point, do a full, offsite backup of all your hard drives, unplug your computer from the Internet, send your wife to her mother's, lock the kids in the basement, cross your fingers, and phone the local bishop for a dispensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensation_(Catholic_Church)).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ef65073c9374c7749b684ab42714f97",
"text": "The best one I've found is TimeSnapper, I have the worst memory but this basically allows me to visually play back the day. It has a bunch of reporting functionality too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa1546e0b1aefde733e09c07e36a6fc1",
"text": "Surprised nobody has mentioned Freshbooks yet. It's lightweight, easy to use, and free for low-end use (scaling up price-wise as you scale up).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "846c78f9080674e5e638934be6f71849",
"text": "\"A free solution that I've been using is Task Coach. It has tasks, subtasks, categories, and all the stuff you would expect from a time tracking program. It also counts each distinct period spent on a task as a separate \"\"effort\"\" that you can add comments, for example to remind you what that chunk of time was spent on.\"",
"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": "062d3910b9cadf511e962d948398fe9f",
"text": "\"Probably people like me who thought they'd turned it all off. For the iphone: Settings -- Privacy -- Location Services -- System Services There you'll see a bunch of system services you probably don't need but (if my phone is any indication) are used pretty regularly to get location data on you. Some may be okay with you, but worth checking out. A few things I looked up: **Cell Network Search** - it's monitoring for Apple's benefit, having this on doesn't do anything for you; turning it off won't affect using your phone **Compass Calibration** - your maps will work fine without this, and you can still calibrate the compass while using it; having it on just lets them ... check location to calibrate a compass you're not using? **Motion Calibration & Distance** - for fitness stuff like tracking steps **Setting Time Zone** - if you don't travel between time zones often, you probably don't need Apple checking your location every day to constantly \"\"set time zone\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccde069c7755ed62ee56a93b5a2fb5fd",
"text": "I would suggest that you try ClearCheckbook. It is kind of like Mint, but you can add and remove things (graphs, features, modules) to make it as simple or diverse as you need it to be. It should be a workable solution for simply tracking both income and expenses, yet it will also provide extra features as needed. There is a free option as well as a paid option with added features. I have not used ClearCheckbook before, but according to their features page it looks like you may have to upgrade to the paid option if you want to have complete tagging/custom field flexibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "987be59025ba34d16ca1979d31c5d0a0",
"text": "\"Unfortunately I don't think any of the online personal finance applications will do what you're asking. Most (if not all) online person finance software uses a combination of partnerships with the banks themselves and \"\"screen scraping\"\" to import your data. This simplifies things for the user but is typically limited to whenever the service was activated. Online personal finance software is still relatively young and doesn't offer the depth available in a desktop application (yet). If you are unwilling to part with historical data you spent years accumulating you are better off with a desktop application. Online Personal Finance Software Pros Cons Desktop Personal Finance Software Pros Cons In my humble opinion the personal finance software industry really needs a hybrid approach. A desktop application that is synchronized with a website. Offering the stability and tools of a desktop application with the availability of a web application.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdf902963e79c6b5e308997b48edab0a",
"text": "I can think of a few simple and quick techniques for timing the market over the long term, and they can be used individually or in combination with each other. There are also some additional techniques to give early warning of possible turns in the market. The first is using a Moving Average (MA) as an indication of when to sell. Simply if the price closes below the MA it is time to sell. Obviously if the period you are looking at is long term you would probably use a weekly or even monthly chart and use a relatively large period MA such as a 50 week or 100 week moving average. The longer the period the more the MA will lag behind the price but the less false signals and whipsawing there will be. As we are looking long term (5 years +) I would use a weekly chart with a 100 week Exponential MA. The second technique is using a Rate Of Change (ROC) Indicator, which is a momentum indicator. The idea for timing the markets in the long term is to buy when the indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when it crosses below the zero line. For long term investing I would use a 13 week EMA of the 52 week ROC (the EMA smooths out the ROC indicator to reduce the chance of false signals). The beauty of these two indicators is they can be used effectively together. Below are examples of using these two indicators in combination on the S&P500 and the Australian S&P ASX200 over the past 20 years. S&P500 1995 to 2015 ASX200 1995 to 2015 If I was investing in an ETF tracking one of these indexes I would use these two indicators together by using the MA as an early warning system and maybe tighten any stop losses I have so that if the market takes a sudden turn downward the majority of my profits would be protected. I would then use the ROC Indicator to sell out completely out of the ETF when it crosses below zero or to buy back in when the ROC moves back above zero. As you can see in both charts the two indicators would have kept you out of the market during the worst of the downfalls in 2000 and 2008 for the S&P500 and 2008 for the ASX200. If there is a false signal that gets you out of the market you can quite easily get back in if the indicator goes back above zero. Using these indicators you would have gotten into the market 3 times and out of it twice for the S&P500 over a 20 year period. For the ASX200 you would have gone in 6 times and out 5 times, also over a 20 year period. For individual shares I would use the ROC indicator over the main index the shares belong to, to give an indication of when to be buying individual stocks and when to tighten stop losses and stay on the sidelines. My philosophy is to buy rising stocks in a rising market and sell falling stocks in a falling market. So if the ROC indicator is above zero I would be looking to buy fundamentally healthy stocks that are up-trending and place a 20% trailing stop loss on them. If I get stopped out of one stock then I would look to replace it with another as long as the ROC is still above zero. If the ROC indicator crosses below zero I would tighten my trailing stop losses to 5% and not buy any new stocks once I get stopped out. Some additional indicators I would use for individual stock would be trend lines and using the MACD as a momentum indicator. These two indicators can give you further early warning that the stock may be about to reverse from its current trend, so you can tighten your stop loss even if the ROC is still above zero. Here is an example chart to explain: GEM.AX 3 Year Weekly Chart Basically if the price closes below the trend line it may be time to close out the position or at the very least tighten up your trailing stop loss to 5%. If the price breaks below an established uptrend line it may well be the end of the uptrend. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows. As GEM has broken below the uptrend line and has maid a lower low, all that is needed to confirm the uptrend is over is a lower high. But months before the price broke below the uptrend line, the MACD momentum indicator was showing bearish divergence between it and the price. In early September 2014 the price made a higher high but the MACD made a lower high. This is called a bearish divergence and is an early warning signal that the momentum in the uptrend is weakening and the trend could be reversing soon. Notice I said could and not would. In this situation I would reduce my trailing stop to 10% and keep a watchful eye on this stock over the coming months. There are many other indicators that could be used as signals or as early warnings, but I thought I would talk about some of my favourites and ones I use on a daily and weekly basis. If you were to employ any of these techniques into your investing or trading it may take a little while to learn about them properly and to implement them into your trading plan, but once you have done that you would only need to spend 1 to 2 hours per week managing your portfolio if trading long-term or about 1 hour per nigh (after market close) if trading more medium term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e54f391924671d1e00e469749b7206a",
"text": "Most businesses have some sort of software to manage their client data. Most of these various software and/or services are industry specific. Black Diamond seems to be a client management tool targeting investment advisers. From the black diamond site Reach an unparalleled level of productivity and transform your client conversations. You don't need one of these unless you're a professional investment adviser with so many clients you can't track them yourself or need more robust reporting or statement generation tools. For your purposes most regular brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, TD, etc, have more than enough tools for the retail level investor. They have news feeds, security analysis papers, historical data, stock screeners, etc. You, a regular retail investor doesn't need to buy special software, your broker will generally provide these things as part of the service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f4c85a0ec524834a22e73607839809b",
"text": "I wrote a small Excel-based bookkeeping system that handles three things: income, expenses, and tax (including VAT, which you Americans can rename GST). Download it here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1094d051d0888469d5c8772a8afb6621",
"text": "Best Linux software is PostBooks. It is full double entry, but there is definitely a learning curve. For platform-agnostic, my favorite is Xero, which is web-based. It is full double entry balance sheet, the bank reconciliation is a pleasure to use, and they are coming out with a US version this summer. Easy to use and does everything I need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f9221aa3d0a75d8bd967c04ee723e88",
"text": "You could theoretically use any time period unit, but 1 minute and 30 minute seem to be the most common and useful. Especially for active traders. This also has the added advantage of giving you useful insight into the trade volumes throughout the day; assuming that is also included on the chart. I think most include that as a bar chart across the bottom. Here is a great example for crude oil on dailyfx: https://www.dailyfx.com/crude-oil Notice that the chart has time options at the top left which include 1 minute, 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 1 day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c53bd5265f7c0ed92cdf121f7e630e2",
"text": "I don't think there are any web based tools that would allow you to do this. The efforts required to build vs the perceived benefit to users is less. All the web providers want the data display as simple as possible; giving more features at times confuses the average user.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46bc1213fb52a6c9ecdc1047f6d59daa",
"text": "For double entry bookkeeping, personal or small business, GnuCash is very good. Exists for Mac Os.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee3149b12c0eb37a8beb933962a0205",
"text": "I recently made the switch to keeping track of my finance (Because I found an app that does almost everything for me). Before, my situation was fairly simple: I was unable to come up with a clear picture of how much I was spending vs saving (altho I had a rough idea). Now I here is what it changes: What I can do now: Is it useful ? Since I don't actually need to save more than I do (I am already saving 60-75% of my income), 1) isn't important. Since I don't have any visibility on my personal situation within a few years, 2) and 3) are not important. Conclusion: Since I don't actually spend any time building theses informations I am happy to use this app. It's kind of fun. If I did'nt had that tool... It would be a waste of time for me. Depends on your situation ? Nb: the app is Moneytree. Works only in Japan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f129a8dcd34cdf2c186ad9c6ee0a7b3",
"text": "I don't wear a watch because I don't need another single-function device in my life. I can tell the time on my smartphone. I will, however, (likely) get an iwatch, or android counterpart. It does more than just tell time - worth taking up a little physical real estate on my wrist.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e05c685c62c30e55083a20b8a08571f7",
"text": "\"My original answer contained a fundamental error: it turns out that it is not true that any exchange can create its own product to track any underlying index. If the underlying index is copyrighted (such as the S&P indices, Russell indices, Dow Jones indices, etc.) then the exchange must enter into a licensing agreement (usually exclusive) with the copyright holder in order to use the index's formula (and name). Without such a license the exchange would only be able to approximate the underlying index, and I don't think that happens very much (because how would you market such a product?). The CME offers several futures (and other derivatives) whose face value is equivalent to some multiple of the S&P500's value on the date when the product expires. When such a product is actively traded, it may serve as a reasonable indicator of the \"\"market\"\"'s expectation of the S&P500's future value. So, you could pay attention to the front month of the CME's S&P 500 Mini future, which trades from 17:00-16:00 Chicago time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But remember that the prices quoted there are As another example, if you care about the Russell 2000 index, until 2017 the ICE Exchange happened to hold the license for its derivatives. They traded from 20:00-17:30 New York time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But in mid-2017 CME bought that license as well, so now you'll want to track it here. Moral: There's almost always some \"\"after hours\"\" product out there tracking whatever index you care about, but you may have to do some digging to find it, and it might not be all that useful for your specific purpose.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b32304b701b8d58dafd682346da54418",
"text": "The short answer is that there are no great personal finance programs out there any more. In the past, I found Microsoft Money to be slick and feature rich but unfortunately it has been discontinued a few years ago. Your choices now are Quicken and Mint along with the several open-source programs that have been listed by others. In the past, I found the open source programs to be both clunky and not feature-complete for my every day use. It's possible they have improved significantly since I had last looked at them. The biggest limitation I saw with them is weakness of integration with financial service providers (banks, credit card companies, brokerage accounts, etc.) Let's start with Mint. Mint is a web-based tool (owned by the same company as Quicken) whose main feature is its ability to connect to nearly every financial institution you're likely to use. Mint aggregates that data for you and presents it on the homepage. This makes it very easy to see your net worth and changes to it over time, spending trends, track your progress on budgets and long-term goals, etc. Mint allows you to do all of this with little or no data entry. It has support for your investments but does not allow for deep analysis of them. Quicken is a desktop program. It is extremely feature rich in terms of supporting different types of accounts, transactions, reports, reconciliation, etc. One could use Quicken to do everything that I just described about Mint, but the power of Quicken is in its more manual features. For example, while Mint is centred on showing you your status, Quicken allows you to enter transactions in real-time (as you're writing a check, initiating a transfer, etc) and later reconciles them with data from your financial institutions. Link Mint, Quicken has good integration with financial companies so you can generally get away with as little or as much data entry as you want. For example, you can manually enter large checks and transfers (and later match to automatically-downloaded data) but allow small entries like credit card purchases to download automatically. Bottom line, if you're just looking to keep track of where you are at, try Mint. It's very simple and free. If you need more power and want to manage your finances on a more transactional level, try Quicken (though I believe they do not have a trial version, I don't understand why). The learning curve is steep although probably gentler than that of GnuCash. Last note on why Mint.com is free: it's the usual ad-supported model, plus Mint sells aggregated consumer behaviour reports to other institutions (since Mint has everyone's transactions, it can identify consumer trends). If you're not comfortable with that, or with the idea of giving a website passwords to all your financial accounts, you will find Quicken easier to accept. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8700cf158da8042aaddd73f9043e4aef",
"text": "\"This election only applies to payments that you make within 120 days of your having received loan money. These wouldn't be required payments, which is why they are called \"\"early\"\" payments. For example, let's say that you've just received $10,000 from your lender for a new loan. One month later, you pay $500 back. This election decides how that $500 will be applied. The first choice, \"\"Apply as Refund,\"\" means that you are essentially returning some of the money that you initially borrowed. It's like you never borrowed it. Instead of a $10,000 loan, it is now a $9,500 loan. The accrued interest will be recalculated for the new loan amount. The second choice, \"\"Apply as Payment,\"\" means that your payment will first be applied to any interest that has accrued, then applied to the principal. While you are in school, you don't need to make payments on student loans. However, interest is accruing from the day you get the money. This interest is simple interest, which means that the interest is only based on the loan principal; the interest is not compounding, and you are not paying interest on interest. After you leave school and your grace period expires, you enter repayment, and you have to start making payments. At this point, all the interest that has accrued from the time you first received the money until now is capitalized. This means that the interest is added to your loan principal, and interest will now be calculated on this new, larger amount. To avoid this, you can pay the interest as you go before it is capitalized, which will save you from having to pay even more interest later on. As to which method is better, just as they told you right on the form, the \"\"Apply as Refund\"\" method will save you the most money in the long run. However, as I said at the beginning, this election only applies if you make a payment within 120 days from receiving loan funds. Since you are already out of school and in repayment, I don't think it matters at all what you select here. For any students reading this and thinking about loans, I want to issue a warning. Student loans can ruin people later in life. If you truly feel that taking out a loan is the only way you'll be able to get the education you need, minimize these as much as possible. Borrow as little as possible, pay as much as you can as early as you can, and plan on knocking these out ASAP. Great Lakes has a few pages that discuss these topics:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
66bec70028409049a7e2382842d08b4d
|
Could someone explain this scenario about Google's involvement in the wireless spectrum auction?
|
[
{
"docid": "fcef97167c4fbde1ac4d54c4eb4c2528",
"text": "\"If history is any guide, Page’s idealistic impulses could result in a vaster, more sprawling company. The following is an example of one of Page’s idealistic impulses (wanting people to share spectrum) which could result in a vaster, more sprawling company (if they hadn't been outbid, Google would have expanded by buying a business asset i.e. spectrum which they didn't need). I've no experience with bidding. I don't understand what's happening at all An 'auction' is a way to sell something. Instead of offering it for sale at a fixed price, you offer it 'to the highest bidder'. Someone (e.g. Google) says, \"\"I'll offer you [some amount: e.g. a million dollars] for it.\"\" If no-one else exceeds that bid, then you say 'sold' and Google has bought it. Alternatively someone else comes along with a higher bid, \"\"I'll offer you two million dollars for it,\"\" in which case they're the new high bidder, and you'll sell it to them unless the process repeats itself with anyone counter-offering an even higher bid. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auction and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_auction The \"\"Disadvantages\"\" section of this article alleges (currently without a citation) that: Despite the apparent success of spectrum auctions, an important disadvantage limiting both efficiency and revenues is demand reduction and collusive bidding. The information and flexibility in the process of auction can be used to reduce auction prices by tacit collusion. When bidder competition is weak and one bidder holds an apparent advantage to win the auction for specific licenses, other bidders will often choose not to the bid for higher prices, hence reducing the final revenue generated by the auction.[citation needed] In this case, the auction is best thought of as a negotiation among the bidders, who agree on who should win the auction for each discrete bit of spectrum. Google's bid made that impossible (or, at least, ensured that the winning bid would be at least as high as the minimum which was set by Google's bid).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "669a6c344487f05ee78ef7994a146ad3",
"text": "At the time of the auction android was just vaporware but many companies were restricting the phones that they allowed on their networks so that they could control what the phones were being used for. The big guys (AT&T, Verison, and Sprint) feared that being forced to allow phones that could do things they did not have control over would cost them money(Especially since they charged for every little feature they added). They also wanted to prevent their phones (which they subsidize to their customers in to reap long term profits) from being taken to other networks. Goggle saw the potential for the largest chunk of bandwidth available to the telco's to be restricted to services of one company and their strangle hold over the phones and services that were allowed to use it. They manuvered the bidding to ensure that this did not happen. There are many who believe that Verison bought the spectrum more to prevent anyone from competeing with them than because they actually wanted to use it. But at least they are forced to allow other parties in to compete even if it is on their playground.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "babd3944822a05c4936d5b189fd90d10",
"text": "\"Comment from the article: \"\"In effect, Google acquired the talent it needed, got the IPR it wanted, and did not have to purchase the whole company and bring in the baggage it did not want. What an Amazing deal for Google. I have no idea where this leaves HTC, though.\"\" Could not agree more. Not sure how HTC is winning in this aspect. I guess we will have to wait and see.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb033f40b43ab33a88d3d985cacee0bd",
"text": "Hm. The largest ad network in the world, whom has a natural monopoly on the search market and the largest web browser by market share, is talking about blocking competitors' ads. That doesn't smell like an antitrust issue at all... /s",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8945d61dce7f439a98813a024cc285d3",
"text": "Summarized article: Nationwide carrier T-Mobile and prepaid provider MetroPCS have agreed to merge in an effort to gain more wireless spectrum and build a faster, higher capacity LTE network. T-Mobile's parent company, Deutsche Telekom, will buy a majority stake in MetroPCS and combine it with T-Mobile to create a new publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange that will retain the T-Mobile name. Under the deal, MetroPCS shareholders will receive $1.5 billion in cash and 26% ownership in the combined company. The transaction is to be completed in early 2013. * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1191b085a69103a24611cadecff7bd21",
"text": "\"I did a quick search, they have a $2B/5yr deal with google cloud. Downside is Google is a competitor potentially, especially in the ad market. Upside is SNAP revenue increased from $58M in 2015 to just over $404M in 2016. I think in today's market, everyone wants to hold the next \"\"Amazon\"\" or \"\"Google\"\" stocks at their conception. Sure would be nice if you had a few thousand in Amazon at their IPO. So I think pure speculation is why they were trading above IPO price for so long. It could be the next biggest thing, or it could fail in 5 years we never know these things lol\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11fe881f1444c8d3054e2db7e8266231",
"text": "I thought Google (Alphabet) filed a suit against Uber for copyright infringement just a few months ago? If that's still going on, then I'd imagine this is Alphabet setting the table for a stranglehold on a business model that could take over an entire industry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dac7c543745a6df99c7a8b83bdfdbbc",
"text": "Google is about to get a kick in the ass. They're trying to compete against a company that fought with many industries on price and yet still won. This is a last effort from traditional retailer to save their business. Google hasn't really done anything great in the past few years, just relying on their ad revenue too much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a90ec34d2a9d9f7ba57f23bafc9652e",
"text": "I've always wondered why nobody has tried to use the broadcast spectrum for internet connectivity. Or at least tried to lobby for repurposing some of the spectrum for that purpose. I had always assumed there was some kind of technical limitation that kept it from being considered. Seems like a much better use of our broadcast spectrum than our antiquated TV networks. Especially after the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d074304cdaf61aec4f068e0b7056212",
"text": "> unlimited data plans on your phone This may work in some countries; in the US, oligopolic wireless carriers are doing their level best to ensure it doesn't become the norm, because they collectively see it as a threat to their business models. They may still lose; tho I consider it unlikely, as the best scenario for that would require increasing the number of players in the wireless market. Some sort of open-access rule for infrastructure built by companies granted spectrum licenses would be a good start, but seems unlikely given how much more sway corporations have over the state than consumers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4da02d924e832bf55fb51b1cee221f69",
"text": "Competition is good. Google promoting its' own services and potentially endangering industries isn't. The purpose of the technology is to foster innovation and competition, not allow one megadon of a company abuse its' position to muscle in on every industry that exists.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "335a5f1156830a441af39286ee2b77fe",
"text": "Feel free to link to any research that supports his claims, I'll read it. And since Google isn't unionized, he doesn't really have much legal recourse. He can sue, but it's unlikely he'll win. More likely is that Google could be successfully sued if they continued to employ him and he exposed them to any kind of harrassment claims.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c6d6d2236218d7e902c117c75ab9b60",
"text": "The announcement comes seven weeks after Walmart inked a similar deal with Google to offer hundreds of thousands of products through the service. Other big-box retailers like Home Depot are also on board. Well I guess I have to choose who's side I'm on. and if Walmart is on Google's side then I chose Amazon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30ef38f1d03520d3ccbd03245497fbea",
"text": "\"Disclaimer: Mozilla employee here. Not speaking for Mozilla, of course, all opinions are my own and my own alone. And I'm not in any way connected w/ the negotiations w/ Google (or anyone else, for that matter) so I don't have any inside information about either Google or Mozilla's stance on the matter. A lot of what you're saying here makes sense, fab13n, but there's one thing that isn't quite right in my mind. You say that Google \"\"subsidized\"\" Firefox. That's not at all how I'd describe the relationship. Yes, it's to Google's advantage to have the web as the platform, and before Chrome became such a player having FF around as a competitor to IE was a good move. But as I understand it this is a business deal, pure and simple. FF's market share may currently be on the decline, but there is still somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000,000 (that's half a billion) Firefox users out there. That's a lot of eyeballs seeing Google as the default search engine and the default home page. Which means a lot of Google searches, which means a lot of Google revenue. I don't know how much they make from that, but I'd guess it's a whole lot more than the $100,000,000/yr they've been paying for that privilege. Now if FF no longer defaulted to Google, they wouldn't lose *all* of those users. Some people would still switch to Google as the default, and lots of people would just type \"\"google.com\"\" in the address bar, or make it their home page. But a lot more people just go w/ the default than you'd first guess. I think that if Google bailed on some renewal of the deal, they'd see a noticeable dip in their traffic, w/ a resulting dip in revenue. This relationship has never been about philanthropy, it's about the money, as usual. For this reason I'm not gonna stress out too much about an article that seems to be little more than speculation. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe a new deal will fall through. But I'm going to wait until I hear that from someone who actually has inside information before I start freaking out about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "554d97e4f7c8fa9d0590323f2d15ada7",
"text": "Got it. I can definitely see how it can come across that way especially with all of these big tech companies lining up against the proposal. My understanding is that a lot of that is more driven by their size than anything else; the media focuses on the impacts to Amazon and Facebook because they're huge companies and it's easier to get information on them. But when it comes to who would get hurt the most by removing NN, it's actually small businesses and startups that would suffer the most. In a world without net neutrality, ISPs would be able to provide access to web services at different speeds. For example, if you are a Comcast customer, if Comcast has a deal with Amazon Prime, they can make it so that your access to competing services like Netflix and Hulu are throttled -- moving so slow that it will be hard to use anything other than Amazon Prime Video. Now, if that happens, it will be annoying for companies like Facebook, Netflix, Google, etc. to have to pay extra for internet users to be able to use them. But they could do it; they have the money. The people who would struggle are people who own smaller businesses and smaller websites; when they're just starting out, they won't have the money to pay the ISPs to let people access them, and as a result they could be essentially locked out of many marketplaces. This is the argument made by people who say that removing net neutrality will stifle small business; removing the regulation would create this built-in structural advantage for large, established businesses and leave smaller businesses locked out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd936fe9d40f735dbda6b517e39cd34c",
"text": "Just remember that LightSquared might bring real competition to wireless cell and broadband services and the big wireless vendors have every incentive to kill the wholesale network before it ever becomes real. The article even says the tests are are at a much higher power than LightSquared would use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "191bdd877407e143a5e4e2ae516a95b3",
"text": "Yes, as you are Indian resident for Tax purposes, you have to pay Tax in India for the amount you have earned in Singapore. So essentially add the income from 1st April to Mid 2014 with the eq SGD earned in Singapore till 31st March 2015. Apply the tax brackets like you normally do, claim the exemptions you would normally do 80 C etc. As India and Singapore has a Dual Tax Avoidance Treaty, you can claim the portion the tax already paid in Singapore and pay only the balance. For example if the tax works out to be Rs 30, you have already paid Rs 20 in Singapore, you would have to pay only Rs 10 in India and mention that you have already paid Rs 20 to Singapore IRS. It is irrelevant whether you transfer the funds to India or not, the tax is applicable in the financial year you have earned. More on DTAA",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
500fe766e9e6c66eb149a38862df150d
|
For young (lower-mid class) investors what percentage should be in individual stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "54932d70e3156a5d564a63e0bdc9a1f4",
"text": "\"The short answer: zero. dg99's answer gives some good reasons why. You will basically never be able to achieve diversification with individual stocks that is anywhere close to what you can get with mutual funds. Owning individual stocks exposes you to much greater risk in that random one-off events that happen to affect one of the companies you own can have a disproportionate effect on your assets. (For instance, some sort of scandal involving a particular company can cause its stock to tank.) There are only two reasons I can see to invest in individual stocks: a. You have some unique opportunity to acquire stock that other people might not be able to get (or get at that price). This can be the case if you work for a privately-held company that allows you to buy stock (or options), or allows you to participate in its IPO. Even then, you should not go too crazy, since having too much stock in the company you work for can double your pain if the company falls on hard times (you may lose your job and your investment). b. For fun. If you like tracking stocks and trying to beat the market, you may want to test your skills at this by using a small proportion of your investable cash (no more than 10%). In this case you're not so much hoping to increase your returns as to just enjoy investing more. This can also have a psychological benefit in that it allows you to \"\"blow off steam\"\" and indulge your desire to make decisions, while allowing your passive investments (index funds) to shoulder the load of actually gaining value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ae55bf06b5b29598b4932492d995608",
"text": "\"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24bde5cc34ca02716339d0bb8a4accbc",
"text": "I would not advise any stock-picking or other active management (even using mutual funds that are actively managed). There is a large body of knowledge that needs learning before you even attempt that. Stay passive with index funds (either ETFs or (even better) low-cost passive mutual funds (because these prevent you from buying/selling). But I have not problem saying you can invest 100% in equity as long as your stomach can handle the price swings. If you freek out after a 25% drop that does not recover within a year, so you sell at the market bottom, then you are better off staying with a lot less risk. It is personal. There are a lot of valid reasons for young people to accept more risk - and equally valid reason why not. See list at http://www.retailinvestor.org/saving.html#norisk",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7383dd763f68e1302c984a493b88e7fe",
"text": "I don't believe the decision is decided by age or wealth. You only stock pick when a) you enjoy the process because it takes time and if you consider it 'work' then the cost will probably not be offset by higher returns. b) you must have the time to spend trading, monitoring, choosing, etc. c) you must have the skills/experience to 'bring something to the table' that you think gives you an edge over everyone else. If you don't then you will be the patsy that others make a profit off.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d5e1bde29d805bce6086b8598a343c8b",
"text": "This depends completely on your investing goals. Typically when saving for retirement younger investors aim for a more volatile and aggressive portfolio but diversify their portfolio with more cautious stocks/bonds as they near retirement. In other words, the volatility that owning a single stock brings may be in line with your goals if you can shoulder the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46954434d854deff0918901928a5d57c",
"text": "How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19a399279fa3d682c76b0f1cb8422a2e",
"text": "IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32f8621bb2dbd2b0f0f4b28ba3bab59a",
"text": "The only sensible reason to invest in individual stocks is if you have reason to think that they will perform better than the market as a whole. How are you to come to that conclusion other than by doing in-depth research into the stock and the company behind it? If you can't, or don't want to, reach that conclusion about particular stocks then you're better off putting your money into cheap index trackers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6e009ec30f69b32a49996716bf36410",
"text": "\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aa78e92743857ed9109abd1c871a63c",
"text": "That is absolute rubbish. Warren Buffet follows simple value and GARP tenants that literally anyone could follow if they had the discipline to do so. I have never once heard of an investment made by Warren Buffet that wasn't rooted in fundamentals and easy to understand. The concept is fairly simple as is the math, buying great companies trading at discounts to what they are worth due to market fluctuations, emotionality, or overreactions to key sectors etc. If I buy ABC corp at $10 knowing it is worth $20, it could go down or trade sideways for FIVE YEARS doing seemingly nothing and then one day catch up with its worth due to any number of factors. In that case, my 100% return which took five years to actualize accounts for an average 20% return per year. Also (and this should be obvious), but diversification is a double edged sword. Every year, hundreds of stocks individually beat the market return. Owning any one of these stocks as your only holding would mean that YOU beat the market. As you buy more stocks and diversify your return will get closer and closer to that of an index or mutual fund. My advice is to stick to fundamentals like value and GARP investing, learn to separate when the market is being silly from when it is responding to a genuine concern, do your own homework and analysis on the stocks you buy, BE PATIENT after buying stock that your analysis gives you confidence in, and don't over diversify. If you do these things, congrats. YOU ARE Warren Buffet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d58f98963f60b0132ca92e895b7293a",
"text": "\"Wouldn't this be part of your investing strategy to know what price is considered a \"\"good\"\" price for the stock? If you are going to invest in company ABC, shouldn't you have some idea of whether the stock price of $30, $60, or $100 is the bargain price you want? I'd consider this part of the due diligence if you are picking individual stocks. Mutual funds can be a bit different in automatically doing fractional shares and not quite as easy to analyze as a company's financials in a sense. I'm more concerned with the fact that you don't seem to have a good idea of what the price is that you are willing to buy the stock so that you take advantage of the volatility of the market. ETFs would be similar to mutual funds in some ways though I'd probably consider the question that may be worth considering here is how much do you want to optimize the price you pay versus adding $x to your position each time. I'd probably consider estimating a ballpark and then setting the limit price somewhere within that. I wouldn't necessarily set it to the maximum price you'd be willing to pay unless you are trying to ride a \"\"hot\"\" ETF using some kind of momentum strategy. The downside of a momentum strategy is that it can take a while to work out the kinks and I don't use one though I do remember a columnist from MSN Money that did that kind of trading regularly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b78580b88a1a29dd3ce954b9a6d999d",
"text": "I'm in a remarkably similar situation as yourself. I keep roughly 80% of my portfolio in low-cost ETFs (16% bond, 16% commodities, 48% stock), with about 20% in 6-8 individual stocks. Individual stocks are often overlooked by investors. The benefits of individual stock ownership are that you can avoid paying any holding or management fee (unlike ETFs and mutual funds). As long as you assess the fundamentals (P/B, P/E, PEG etc.) of the company you are buying, and don't over-trade, you can do quite well. I recommend semi-annual re-balancing among asset classes, and an individual stock check up. I've found over the years that my individual stocks outperform the S&P500 the vast majority of the time, although it often accompanied by an increase in volatility. Since you're limiting your stake to only 20%, the volatility is not really an issue.",
"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": "eee03650200f5d1f81afdedae2ae5dfb",
"text": "At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "271b245c66784da2295c00234b95afee",
"text": "Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d69f5e6cf8b569f776788242ee66c6a8",
"text": "\"Chris - you realize that when you buy a stock, the seller gets the money, not the company itself, unless of course, you bought IPO shares. And the amount you'd own would be such a small portion of the company, they don't know you exist. As far as morals go, if you wish to avoid certain stocks for this reason, look at the Socially Responsible funds that are out there. There are also funds that are targeted to certain religions and avoid alcohol and tobacco. The other choice is to invest in individual stocks which for the small investor is very tough and expensive. You'll spend more money to avoid the shares than these very shares are worth. Your proposal is interesting but impractical. In a portfolio of say $100K in the S&P, the bottom 400 stocks are disproportionately smaller amounts of money in those shares than the top 100. So we're talking $100 or less. You'd need to short 2 or 3 shares. Even at $1M in that fund, 20-30 shares shorted is pretty silly, no offense. Why not 'do the math' and during the year you purchase the fund, donate the amount you own in the \"\"bad\"\" companies to charity. And what littleadv said - that too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "8cacfa26102b736a50d8bc1bed41ad7c",
"text": "\"Curious, are you asking about average, or the good numbers? The median family doesn't have $2500 to address an emergency. We are a nation of debtors, and spenders. A young couple at .8 is doing well. It means they saved 20% for a down payment, and just bought a house. Not too tough to buy with 5% down, have no other savings, and a student loan to put the debt to equity over 100%. Older people should be shooting for zero. I semi-retired at 50, and my mortgage is at about 8% of my net worth. 50% would be too high. Others 50+ should have at least 50% equity in their home and nearly half their \"\"number,\"\" the amount needed to retire. So, a target is 25% maximum. These numbers shouldn't impact you at all. You should plan wisely, spend frugally, and prioritize your goals. There are 'zero debt' people out there who make me look reckless, and others who invest in rentals with a goal of keeping them highly leveraged. Neither group is wrong, what's right for you is what lets you sleep at night.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d90fea8919eaee4e7a4053d3661257cb",
"text": "You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
de54e6b1093070749f7fc9b60f693d16
|
Is 401k as good as it sounds given the way it is taxed?
|
[
{
"docid": "a36d7b20f1a3fef181a86de307a3c5b5",
"text": "Your analysis is not comparing apples to apples which is why it looks like investing money in a non-qualified account is better than a 401k (traditional or Roth). For the non-qual you are using post tax dollars (money that has already been taxed). Now on top of that original tax you are also going to pay capital gains tax for any growth plus dividend rates for any dividends it throws off. For the 401k, let's assume for the moment that $10,000 is invested in a traditional and that the marginal tax rate is always 20%. And for growth let's assume 10x. With a traditional your money will grow to $100,000 and then the IRS gets $20,000 as you pull the money out. The result is a net 80,000 for you. For a Roth 401k, it is taxed first so only $8,000 gets invested. This then grows by the same multiplier to $80,000. (Until you consider changing tax rates the Roth and traditional give the same growth of money). Considering the non-qual option, like with the Roth we only have $8,000 to invest. However in this case you will not realize the full 10x growth as you will have to pay taxes on $72,000. These are taxes that the 401ks (and also IRAs) do not pay. There are other reasons to consider non-qual over maxing out your 401k. Liquidity, quality of investments, and fees being some of those. But the capital gains rate vs. ordinary income rate is not one, as the money in the non-qual still has to go through that ordinary income tax first before it is available to even invest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30a055c3759abd566bb7d3845ec0a3f4",
"text": "There are 3 options (option 2 may not be available to you) When you invest 18,000 in a Traditional 401k, you don't pay taxes on the 18k the year you invest, but you pay taxes as you withdraw. There's a Required Minimum Distribution required after age 70. If your income is low enough, you won't pay taxes on your withdrawals. Otherwise, you pay as if it is income. However, you don't pay payroll tax (Social Security / Medicare) on the withdrawals. You pay no tax until you withdraw. When you invest 18,000 in a Roth 401k, you pay income tax on the 18,000 in the year it's invested, but you pay nothing after that. When you invest 18,000 in a taxable investment account, you pay income tax on that 18,000 in the year it's invested, you pay tax on dividends (even if they're re-invested), and then you pay capital gains tax when you withdraw. But remember, tax rules and tax rates are only good so long as Congress doesn't change the applicable laws.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3187c81565c030bb4ce834c1add5895",
"text": "\"Before anything, I see that no one mentioned the one thing about 401(k) accounts that's just shy of magic - The matching deposit. In 2015, 42% of companies offered a dollar for dollar match on deposits. Can't beat that. (Note - to respond to Xalorous' comment, the $18K OP deposits can be nearly any percent of his income. The typical match is 'up to' 6% of gross income. If that's the case, the 401(k) deposits are doubled. But say he makes $100K. The $18K deposit will see a $6K match. This adds a layer of complexity to the answer that I preferred to avoid, as I show with no match at all, and no change in tax brackets, the deferral alone shows value to the investor.) On to the main answer - Let's pull out a spreadsheet - We start with $10,000, and assume the 25% bracket. This gives a choice of $10,000 in the 401(k) or $7500 in the taxable account. Next, let 20 years pass, with 10% return each year. The 401(k) sees the full 10% and after 20 years, $67K. The taxable account owner waits to get the 15% cap gain rate and adjusts portfolio, thus seeing an 8.5% return each year and carrying no ongoing gains. After 20 years of 8.5% returns, he has $38K net. The 401(k) owner on withdrawal pays the 25% tax and has $50K, still more than 25% more money that the taxable account. Because transactions within the account were all tax deferred. EDIT - With respect to davmp's comment, I'll offer the other extreme - In his comment, he (rightly) objected that I chose to trade every year, although I did assign the long term 15% cap gain rate, he felt the annual trade was my attempt to game the analysis. Above, I offer his extreme case, a 10% return each year, no trade, no dividend. Just a cap gain at the end. The 401(k) still wins. I also left the tax (on the 401(k)) at withdrawal at 25%, when in fact, much, if not all will be taxed at 15% or lower, which would put the net at $57K or 30% above the taxable account final withdrawal. The next issue I'd bring up is that the 401(k) is taken out at the top (marginal) tax rate, e.g. a single filer with taxable income over $37,650 (in 2016) would save 25% on that 401(k) deduction. Of course if the deduction pulls you under that line, I'd go Roth or taxable. But, withdrawals start at zero. Today, a single retiree has a standard deduction ($4050) and exemption ($6300) for a total $10,350 \"\"zero bracket\"\" with the next $9275 taxed at 10%. This points to needing $500K in pre tax accounts before withdrawals each year would get you past the 10% bracket. (This comes from the suggestion of using 4% as an annual withdrawal rate). Last - the tax discussion has 2 major points in time, deposit and withdrawal, of course. But, the answers here all ignore all the time in between. In between, you see that for any number of reasons, you'll drop from the 25% bracket to 15% that year. That's the time to convert a bit of money to Roth and 'top off' the 15% bracket. It can happen due to job loss, marriage with new spouse either not working or having lower income, new baby, house purchase, etc. Or in-between, a disability put you out of work. That permits you to take money out with no penalty, and little chance of paying even the 25% that you paid going in. This, from personal experience with a family member, funded a 401(k) with 28% money. Then divorced and disabled, able to take the $10K/yr to supplement worker's comp (non taxed) income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "027dbb6369f229a7e11d81f45da89d8e",
"text": "When you are investing for 40 years, you will have taxable events before retirement. You'll need to pay tax along the way, which will eat away at your gains. For example, in your taxable account, any dividends and capital gain distributions will need taxes paid each year. In your 401(k) or IRA, these are not taxable until retirement. In addition, what happens if you want to change investments before retirement? In your taxable account, taxes on the capital gains will be due at that time, but in a retirement account, you can change investments anytime you like without having to pay taxes early. Finally, when you do pull money out of your 401(k) at retirement, it will be taxed at whatever your tax rate is at retirement. After you retire, your income will probably be lower than when you were working, so your tax rate might be less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f03a13fea8f0037151eb5edbd661c22d",
"text": "\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6981bcc6a89b2446fc18d001b0427f02",
"text": "If you put it in a normal account it is (1) taxed as ordinary income now and then (2) any growth is taxed again at the capital gains rate. Additionally, (3) any dividends will be taxed each year. If you put it in a 401(k), you will only be taxed once, at the ordinary income rate. Mathematically, if you start with X and have a regular tax rate of t and capital gains rate of g and your investments return r and there are n years to retirement, then your total wealth if you put it in a mutual fund (ignoring annual taxes on dividends) will be While if you used a 401(k) it would simply be The whole g term (along with any annual taxes on dividends) is gone in the second case and that's potentially a lot of taxes. The 401(k) is much better in terms of total wealth unless tax rates dramatically rise between now and when you retire so that the t in the second case is much higher than in the first. This is virtually never the case for people retiring now. Of course, what tax rates the future holds, we do not know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "081215682c8e1eab69d3bbd7dddc7c1c",
"text": "\"You raise a good point about the higher marginal rates for 401K but things will be different, in retirement, than they are for you now. First off you are going to have a \"\"boat load\"\" of money. Like probably a multi-millionaire. Also your ability to invest will (probably) increase greater than the maximum allowable to invest. For this money you might choose to invest in real estate, debt payoff, or non-qualified mutual funds. So fast forward to retirement time. You have a few million in your 401K, you own your house and car(s) outright and maybe a couple of rental properties. For one your expenses are much lower. You don't have to invest, pay social security taxes, or service debt. Clothing, gas, dry cleaning are all lower as well. You will draw some income off of non-qualified plans. This might include rental real estate, business income, or equity investments. You can also draw social security income. For most of us social security will provide sustenance living. Enough for food, medical, transportation, etc. Add in some non-qualified income and the fact that you are debt free, or nearly so, and you might not need to draw on your 401K. Plus if you do need to withdraw you can cherry pick when and what amount you withdraw. Compare that to now, your employer pays you your salary. Most of us do not have the ability to defer our compensation. With a 401K you can! For example lets say you want a new car where you need to withdraw from your 401K to pay for it. In retirement you can withdraw the full amount and pay cash. Part of this money will be taxed at the lowest rate, part at higher rates. (Car price dependent.) In retirement you can take a low interest or free loan and only withdraw enough to make the payments this year. Presumably this will be at the lowest rate. Now you only have one choice: Using your top marginal rate to pay for the car. It doesn't matter if you have a loan or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9553b42e51e414b61ae185c8869cd22c",
"text": "Don't forget inflation. With a Roth 401k (or IRA), you don't pay any taxes on inflationary or real gains. You pay taxes at the beginning and then no more taxes (unless you invest money after you distributed from it). With a regular, taxable investment account (not a 401k or IRA), you pay taxes on the initial amount. And then you pay taxes on the gains, both inflationary and real. So you effectively pay taxes on the inflated principal twice. Once at initial earning and once when it shows up as inflationary gains. I'll give an example later. With a traditional 401k (or IRA), you pay no taxes on the initial amount. You pay taxes on the distributed amount. That includes taxes on gains, but it only taxes them once, not twice. All the taxes are paid at distribution time. Here's a semirealistic example. This is not a real example with real numbers, but the numbers shouldn't be ridiculously off. They could happen. I'm going to ignore variation and pretend that all the numbers will be the same each year so as to simplify the math. So you pay a 25% marginal tax rate and want to invest $12,000 plus any tax savings. Roth: $12,000 principal Traditional IRA (Trad): $16,000 principal with $4000 in tax savings Taxable Investment Account (TIA): $12,000 principal Let's assume that you make an 8% rate of return and inflation is 3%. Both numbers are possible, although higher and lower numbers have occurred in the past. That gives you returns of $960 for the Roth and TIA cases and a return of $1280 for the Trad case. Pay no annual taxes on the Roth or Trad cases. Pay 25% marginal tax on the TIA case, that's $240. Balances after one year: Roth: $12,960 Trad: $17,280 TIA: $12,720 Inflation decreases the value of the Roth and TIA cases by $360 in the Roth and TIA cases. And by $480 in the Trad case. Ten years of inflationary gains (cumulative): Roth: $5354 Trad: $7138 TIA: $4872 Net buildup (including inflationary gains): Roth: $25,907 Trad: $34,543 TIA: $23,168 Real value (minus inflation to maintain spending power): Roth: $20,554 Trad: $27,405 TIA: $18,109 Now take out $3000 per year, after taxes. That's $3000 in the the Roth and TIA cases, as you already paid the taxes. In the Trad case, that's $4000 because you have to pay 25% tax which will cost $1000. Do that for five years and the new balances are Roth: $9931 Trad: $13,241 TIA: $5973 The TIA will run out in the 8th year. The Roth and Trad will both run out in the 9th year. So to summarize. The Traditional IRA initially grows the most. The TIA grows the least. The TIA is tax-advantaged over the Traditional IRA at that point, but it still runs out first. The Roth IRA grows about the same as the Traditional after taxes are included. Note that I left out the matching contribution from a 401k. That would help both those options. I assumed that the marginal tax rate would be 25% on the Traditional IRA distributions. It might be only 15%, which would increase the advantage of the Traditional IRA. I assumed that the 15% rate on capital returns would still be true for the entire period. If that is increased, the TIA option gets a lot worse. Inflation could be higher or lower. As stated earlier, the TIA account is hit the worst by inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a5e0148b8dd3f79ea41dfe64c95dc07",
"text": "Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money. So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51ec965a4eec4d21850e5055c1062b74",
"text": "\"This is an excellent topic as it impacts so many in so many different ways. Here are some thoughts on how the accounts are used which is almost as important as the as calculating the income or tax. The Roth is the best bang for the buck, once you have taken full advantage of employer matched 401K. Yes, you pay taxes upfront. All income earned isn't taxed (under current tax rules). This money can be passed on to family and can continue forever. Contributions can be funded past age 70.5. Once account is active for over 5 years, contributions can be withdrawn and used (ie: house down payment, college, medical bills), without any penalties. All income earned must be left in the account to avoid penalties. For younger workers, without an employer match this is idea given the income tax savings over the longer term and they are most likely in the lowest tax bracket. The 401k is great for retirement, which is made better if employer matches contributions. This is like getting paid for retirement saving. These funds are \"\"locked\"\" up until age 59.5, with exceptions. All contributed funds and all earnings are \"\"untaxed\"\" until withdrawn. The idea here is that at the time contributions are added, you are at a higher tax rate then when you expect to withdrawn funds. Trade Accounts, investments, as stated before are the used of taxed dollars. The biggest advantage of these are the liquidity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33fdd5c601c5be789b5be3d68eff1b62",
"text": "\"If you pay 20% tax now and none later or if you pay no tax now and 20% later, it doesn't make a difference. Mathematically, it's the same. You have to guess about which tax rate (now vs later) will be higher for you in order for you to make the best choice. Predicting tax rates 40 years in advance is hard. Everybody pretends like they can do this accurately. I would suggest going half and half. If you have 20k and put half in pre-tax (10k in) and half in post-tax (only 8k in) you end up with 18k total in which is right in the middle of where you would be if you went with the whole 20k in either extreme. It would also leave you owing 2k in tax rather than the possible 4k in tax if you had gone with all pre-tax. When you split down the middle, you are guaranteed to have 50% in the \"\"right\"\" side, the side with the best outcome. Being guaranteed to be 50% on the right side is pretty good compared to maybe being 100% on the wrong side.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5e7474ca387cdf47d9c57a7c165ff9a1",
"text": "The alternative isn't too bad. Invest in a regular account. The dividends and cap gains will see favorable tax treatment. In my opinion, much of the magic of the retirement account is with 401(k) matched deposits. The benefit you'll miss is the long term opportunity to skim income off the top, at say, 25%, have it grow, and then withdraw it at a much lower average tax rate. If that benefit doesn't outweigh the fear of the 10%, stick with my first thought above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88be7bb052f84e4f31196aba623c8a15",
"text": "I agree, but that's only a small fraction. You could even argue that the money that is not being paid in taxes isn't necessarily a bad thing as it's funneled back to investors, which also includes the common person that is saving for their retirement, which will also get taxed. Of course that's only for public companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1f1d37b45d53d66203be41d788dcd70",
"text": "\"Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc. Now, a statement such as \"\"I see my 401k is up 10%\"\" is meaningless unless you tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest these days), then your 11th contribution increases your 401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is \"\"up 10%\"\". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the 401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now. Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the 401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So, if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%. But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund because there is no money to pay for the additional shares you wish to purchase. Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the \"\"return\"\" can be used to buy more shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0443274c12206bfb63207309d55bb569",
"text": "As far as broad principles, I think that you are on track. The only suggestion I would have is to look into HSAs. They are another great tax-advantaged account, accessible to those with high incomes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a4d4a1b2146a202c55a6995119675bd",
"text": "\"Technically, this doesn't seem like a scam, but I don't think the system is beneficial. They use a lot of half-truths to convince you that their product is right for you. Some of the arguments presented and my thoughts. Don't buy term and invest the rest because you can't predict how much you'll earn from the \"\"rest\"\" Also Don't invest in a 401k because you can't predict how much you'll earn They are correct that you won't know exactly how much you'll have due to stock market, but that doesn't mean the stock market is a bad place to put your money. Investing in a 401k is risky because of the harsh 401k withdrawal rules Yes, 401ks have withdrawal rules (can't typically start before 59.5, must start by 70.5) but those rules don't hamper my investing style in any way. Most Term Life Insurance policies don't pay out They are correct again, but their conclusions are wrong. Yes, most people don't die while you have a term insurance policy which is why Term life insurance is relatively cheap. But they aren't arguing you don't need insurance, just that you need their insurance which is \"\"better\"\" You need the Guaranteed growth they offer The chart used to illustrate their guaranteed growth includes non-guaranteed dividends. They invest $10,000 per year for 36 years and end up with $1,000,000. That's a 5% return! I use 10% for my estimate of stock market performance, but let's say it's only 8%. The same $10,000 per year results in over $2 Million dollars. Using 10.5% (average return of the S&P 500 over it's lifetime) the result is a staggering $3.7 MILLION. So if I'm looking at $3.7M vs. $1M, It costs me $2.7 Million dollars to give me the same coverage as my term life policy. That's one expensive Term Life Insurance policy. My personal favorite: Blindly following the advice of Wall Street and financial “gurus” such as Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman got you where you are. Are you happy with the state of your finances? Do you still believe their fairytale, “Buy Term (insurance) and Invest the Difference”? Yes, I sure do believe that fairytale and I'm prospering quite well thank you. :) While I don't think this is a scam, it's outrageously expensive and not a good financial choice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "030a0714c9b60c9f7f3d8a5bf0dc6cd0",
"text": "On the statement it now tracks how much is contributed to the account pre and post tax. This is the key. Your withdrawals will be proportional. Assuming you have contributed 90% in regular contributions (pre-tax) and 10% in Roth (post tax), when you withdraw $1000, it will be $900 from the regular (taxed fully) and $100 from the Roth (not taxed, assuming its a qualified distribution). Earnings attributed proportionally to the contributions. I agree with you that it is not the best option, and would also prefer separate accounts, but with 401k - the account is per employee. Instead of doing 401k Roth/Non-Roth consider switching to Regular 401k and Roth IRA - then you can separate the funds easily as you wish.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "794ea32bcc14adc5586eceeeb639c9ee",
"text": "The $250K and up are not one homogeneous group. The lower end of this group benefits from normal Schedule A itemized deductions, e.g. mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax, and charitable donations. As you mention, 401(k) ($17k employee contribution limit this year), but also things like the dependent care account ($5k limit) and flexible spending account, limited usually up to $2500 in '14. The 529 deposits are limited to the gifting limit, $14K in 2014, but one can gift up to five years' deposits up front. This isn't a tax deduction, but does pull money out of one's estate and lets it grow tax free similar to a Roth IRA. The savings from such accounts is probably in the $15k - $20K range given the 20 or so year lifetime of the account and limited deposits. At the higher end, the folks making the news are those whose income is all considered capital gains. This applies both to hedge fund managers as well as CEOs whose compensation included large blocks of stock. This isn't a tax deduction, but it's how our system works, the taxation of capital gains vs. ordinary income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfaa645c7651c8f7438718e0321ef707",
"text": "For various reasons, if you can defer tax payment, it's good for you [when you can give uncle sam $x tomorrow, why give it today?]. Some reasons are, you may plan to return back to your country after x years and then you can pay tax at a lower bracket [e.g. convert 401k to Rollover-IRA then do Roth-conversion and pay lower tax bracket]. Paying now versus later is purely based on your anticipated future tax bracket. [if future bracket is same.. say 25% today and after say 20 years, 25%.. there is absolutely no difference between today payment or future payment of tax -- you can mathematically prove the returns are the same for Roth-IRA (or Roth-401k) versus IRA (or 401k)]. Having a bigger balance (in case of 401k compared to roth-401k) can also give you a sense of more security -- since there are provisions for hardship withdrawal (tax may be due)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a583f8aa944dd9185528d222d199839",
"text": "\"As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad. The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase. I am on the side of \"\"don't do it\"\" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more. Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6913c3128a087e10f462defd06dd3ae5",
"text": "\"Great. 10% of the pre-tax 450 you'd make in a week of 40 hours' work means you could buy about 2 shares a month. I assume they pay bi-weekly, so you can qualify to buy a share. 25% 401k contribution off less than 30k annual salary is peanuts to the company, and peanuts to the employee by retirement. Competitively speaking, thats actually a rather bare-bones retirement package, isn't it? I hope that health care waves covers deductables 100% - otherwise a yearly checkup will be 10% of your takehome that week in addition to the hours you take off work and get \"\"points\"\" under their draconian \"\"no days off ever\"\" policy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e381aeb1110d8b207c75ddc922101ea8",
"text": "Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1cdcfa7fc903dec38f2a372500111eb",
"text": "\"As JoeTaxpayer says, \"\"It's a very rare circumstance where an early 401(k) withdrawal actually makes any real economic sense.\"\" Your statements that one year's salary for you is $60K and the combination of your spouse's income and yours puts you into the highest income tax bracket together lead to the conclusion that your spouse's income is considerably higher than yours. If this income will continue past your death (e.g. you two are not in a joint venture that will collapse when you pass away because she cannot do the work by herself), then it is very definitely to your joint advantage to leave your money in a tax-deferred account for as long as possible. Her income should be enough to cover the mortgage payments. Also, rather than take the money out and paying taxes at a high rate right now, your spouse can roll over the 401k money into an IRA and withdraw only small amounts per year, paying taxes spread over the years rather than in a lump sum.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd8d505bbe47d1a16680b5ed19bc6230",
"text": "Craig touched on it, but let me expand on the point. Deposits, by definition, are withheld at your marginal rate. And since you can choose Roth vs Traditional right till filing time, you know with certainty the rate you are at each year. Absent any other retirement income, i.e. no pension, and absent an incredibly major change to our tax code, I know your starting rate, zero. The first $10K or so per person is part of their standard deduction and exemption. For a couple, the next $18k is taxed at 10%, and so on. Let me stop here to expand this important point. This is $38,000 for the couple, and the tax on it is less than $1900. 5%. There is no 5% bracket of course. It's the first $20K with zero tax, and that first $18,000 taxed at 10%. That $38,000 takes nearly $1M in pretax accounts to offer as an annual withdrawal. The 15% bracket starts after this, and applies to the next $57K of withdrawals each year. Over $95K in gross withdrawals of pretax money, and you still aren't in the 25% bracket. This is why 100% in traditional, or 100% in Roth aren't either ideal. I continue to offer the example I consider more optimizing - using Roth for income that would otherwise be taxed at 15%, but going pretax when you hit 25%. Then at retirement, you withdraw enough traditional to just stay at 10 or 15% and Roth for the rest. It would be a shame to retire 100% Roth and realize you paid 25% but now have no income to use up those lower brackets. Oddly, time value of money isn't part of my analysis. It makes no difference. And note, the exact numbers do change a bit each year for inflation. There's a also a good chance the exemptions goes away in favor of a huge increased standard deduction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76fdec82f23aeb8c14fab73c29211526",
"text": "\"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies. I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k. The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about. In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself). If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future. Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options. Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves. I think it's called a \"\"nondiscrimination test\"\" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management. So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae781ef3c03cfe23f54867fc42a17c79",
"text": "That goodness here in Australia we don't annualise GDP figures rrom just on individual quarter. That is such a stupid practice. We state the quarterly figure and then add the previous three quarters to calculate the rolling 12 month figure. Makes so much more sense.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
061b45ae405b62beb30d719565fcdcd9
|
How can banks afford to offer credit card rewards?
|
[
{
"docid": "5c91a24a3ecb00578f4227c5cd7809b4",
"text": "There are 3 entities in a credit card transaction; Typically when you swipe for 100, the merchant only gets around 97.5. The 2.5 is divided amongst the 3 entities, roughly around 0.5 for the Merchant Bank, around 0.5 for the Card Network and a lions share to Issuing Bank of around 1.5 The reason Issuing Bank gets large share is because they take the risk and provide the credit to customer. Typically the Issuing Bank would pay the Merchant bank via the Card Network the money in couple of days. So the Merchant Bank is not out of funds. The Issuing Bank on the other hand would have given you a credit of say 10 to 50 days depending on when you made the transaction and when the payment is due. On an average 30 days of credit. So roughly the Acquiring Bank is lending money at the rate of 18%. It is from this money the Issuing Bank would give out rewards, which is typically less than 1%. Also in cases where say Merchant Bank and the Issuing Bank are same, Bank would make money on both the legs of transaction and hence launch co-branded cards with better rewards. The above numbers are illustrative and actual practices vary from Bank to Bank to card Network to Country Related question at How do credit card companies make profit?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "842d702d0a16587e75274be26c6e911e",
"text": "One reason why some merchants in the US don't accept Discover is that the fee the store is charged is higher than the average. Generally a portion of transaction fee for the network and the issuing bank goes to the rewards program. In some cases a portion of the interest can also be used to fund these programs. Some cards will give you more points when you carry a balance from one month to the next. Therefore encouraging consumers to have interest charges. This portion of the program will be funded from the interest charges. Profits: Rewards: Some rewards are almost always redeemed: cash once the amount of charges gets above a minimum threshold. Some are almost never redeemed: miles with high requirements and tough blackout periods. Credit cards that don't understand how their customers will use their cards can run into problems. If they offer a great rewards program that encourages use, but pays too high a percentage of points earned can lead to problems. This is especially true when a great percentage of users pay in full each month. This hurt Citibank in the 1990's. They had a card with no annual fee forever, and a very high percentage never had to pay interest. People flocked to the card, and kept it as an emergency card, because they knew it would never have a annual fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "620a5771bda356a45fa859b57aeae7f0",
"text": "The banks don't have to pay for credit card rewards. The merchants end up footing the bill. The merchants that accept credit cards pay from 2-4% in fees on the credit card purchase. Those fees go to support the rewards programs. The merchants also take on most of the risk during a credit card transaction (although the credit card companies would have you believe otherwise). If a thief uses a stolen card to purchase a camera from Mike's Camera Shop for instance, any funds the merchant received will be taken away from the merchant. In addition, the merchant will be hit with a chargeback fee (usually around $20-$60). Finally, since the card was stolen, the merchant will never get their merchandise returned, so Mike's Camera is out the camera as well. No camera, no funds, and a $60 fee to boot. The credit card issuers make $60 on the chargeback fees and have no liability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac18f121ae9ec8c4697b03740588d5c8",
"text": "Michael Pryor's answer is accurate to the actual question asked. The current accepted answer from Dheer is not entirely true but roughly provides an overview of the different entities involved in a typical transaction, with some wrong terminologies, corrected and improved below. The issuing bank, the one that issues the credit card to the customer. When it comes to the service fee split, the issuer bank takes on the majority of the cut in the service fee paid by the merchant to the different entities. For example, on a 2.5% overall fee paid by merchant, roughly 1.5% goes to the issuer, 0.3% goes to the card network (visa, master card, etc) and the remaining 0.7% goes to the acquiring bank. Reward programs have a partnership with participating merchants, where merchants are charged a higher service fee, for the likelihood of driving a higher volume of transactions to the merchant. A portion of the rewards also comes from the issuer, who shares a percentage of their fee back to the customer, in exchange for the same likelihood of making more profit through increased volume in total transactions. For example, a reward program may charge merchants 4.5% fee, with 3.5% of it going to the issuer. Upto 3% of this can be given back to the customer for their loyalty in using the card service. The banks can afford to take as little as 0.5% instead of their regular 1.5% due to the increased volume of transactions and the fixed fee they collect as membership fee. Note that costco has a similar business plan, but they make money entirely of membership fee. So with enough clients, banks can theoretically afford to run their program entirely on membership fees, costing no additional service fee to merchants. The service fee depicted above is arbitrary, and it can be lowered if the merchant is also a client of the issuing bank, that is, both the issuing bank and acquiring bank are the same. So it is kind of a win-win-win situation. And as usual, the banks can afford to make a larger income, if the customer ends up paying interest for their credit - although the rewards program is not designed accounting on this.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dbb3ec715d8b422ce3e1ee805b3c85dc",
"text": "Interchange fees. Every time a customer buys something on credit, the seller pays a fee. They're not allowed to itemize that fee and pass it on to the buyer, but they can offer a cash payment discount. In short, rewards cards are a system of collective bargaining for buyers versus sellers. Some argue it drives prices up for everyone who isn't a cardholder, but I think the evidence is mixed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19bde1702c8c2197120ccd74d527b835",
"text": "While you're asking about a particular bank, I'll give my opinion of this in general. I think a $12,000 household income is pretty low to be given credit. The risk to the bank is certainly higher than if the income were at that $35,000 level. They can use this to differentiate what they offer for perks, and if they ever collateralize the debt of these cards, it's a clearly defined demographic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2877406bf0777a29e86442ade57fcb8",
"text": "Here's one reason that's being overlooked in answers so far. (@ChrisInEdmonton, this is for your comment on @Chad's answer.) How do credit card companies make money? Sure, there's interest charges, but those are offset significantly by the cost of borrowing money, and by people defaulting on their debt / entering bankruptcy. The other way they make money is by processing transactions. They get a cut of whatever you buy. If you're a high-income person, and you're going to process a lot of expenditures with this credit card, your business is worth more. They will be willing to bribe you with things like cash-back, frequent flier miles, and insurance on your auto rentals, so that they can be your #1 go-to card. (This works in concert with the way that some credit card vendors with richer clientele overall - American Express - get to charge higher merchant fees for access to these customers' wallets. But that was mentioned in other answers.) If you're not a high-income person, your business is worth less. If you go somewhere asking for credit, they're going to try and give you a card which will earn them the most money - which probably isn't the one where they give you back 50% of their transaction fee in rewards. It's a calculated risk, since they still have to compete against cash, debit cards, and all the other credit card companies, so they don't have you totally over a barrel, but you shouldn't expect as many freebies, either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44af6e62a7fd75f9cf9513658df55b90",
"text": "Trick question dude. Can't be done. Sorry to tell you. I've been hit with this. Credit card companies do not make money on these customers. Why does Amex have an annual fee on all cards and an abnormally large transaction fee for merchants? Because they don't allow you to carry a balance (On traditional cards). Meaning they don't make money on interest, like the customers in question here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70be767cf8054746efe00c029e2349f2",
"text": "\"The bottom line is that you are kind of a terrible customer for them. Granted you are far better than one that does not pay his bills, but you are (probably) in the tier right above that. Rewards cards are used to lure the unorganized into out of control interest rates and late payments. These people are Capital One's, and others, best customers. They have traded hundreds of dollars in interest payments for a couple of dollars in rewards. The CC company says: \"\"YUMMY\"\"! You, on the other hand, cut into their \"\"meager\"\" profits from fees collected from your transactions. Why should they help you make more money? Why should they further cut into your profits? Response to comment: Given your comment I think the bottom line is a matter of perspective. You seem like a logical, altruistic type person who probably seeks a win-win situation in business dealings. This differs from CC companies they operate to seek one thing: enslavement. BTW the \"\"terrible customer\"\" remark should be taken as a compliment. After you get past the marketing lies you begin to see what reward programs and zero percent financing is all about. How do most people end up with 21%+ interest rates? They started with a zero percent balance loan, and was late for a payment. Reward cards work a bit differently. Studies show that people tend to spend about 17% more when they use a reward card. I've caught myself ordering an extra appetizer or beer and have subsequently stopped using a reward card for things I can make a decision at the time of purchase. For people with tight budgets this leads to debt. My \"\"meager\"\" profits paragraph makes sense when you understand the onerous nature of CC companies. They are not interested in earning 2% on purchases (charge 3% and give back 1%) for basically free money. You rightly see this as what should be a win-win for all parties involved. Thus the meager in quotation marks. CC companies are willing to give back 1% and charge 3% if you then pay 15% or more on your balance. Some may disagree with me on the extracting nature of CC companies, but they are wrong. I like him as an actor, but I don't believe Samuel Jackson's lines.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b770fe5e597b3e19d2a254d0222386c",
"text": "Not for normal banking. You can open as many accounts as you want. I did this recently with some Amazon gift card churning for a Chase cash bonus. Staying a long time may have their credit department reach out and offer you a long time customer discount. But no one is saying you have to close one account to open another.",
"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": "a02953d7276dc71ac04d14269d15ff1c",
"text": "Much money is made by creditors on the transaction value of a client in addition to interest value. Knowing that, I pay off all my cards every month, have never made a late payment, and get a number of offers every year for reward type cards. Don't ever be worried about paying off your card in full, just be sure you're using your card and that you pay on time, every time.",
"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": "031ea471c476d8aad37a82d300a16ce9",
"text": "Some accounts, such as my electric, and payments to the tax collector charge a significant enough fee that is counter productive to use a rewards card. One example of this is Alligent Air. They give you a $6 discount if you pay with a debit card which was about 5% of the ticket price. Anytime you borrow money, even as well intentioned and thought out as you plan to do so, you are increasing risk. By managing it carefully you can certainly mitigate it. The question becomes, does that time spent in management worth the $600/year? I did the costco amex deal for about 12 years earning about $300-$400 per year and only once getting hit with a late/finance charge. Despite the success, I opted to end this for a few different reasons. First off people using credit tend to spend more. Secondly, I felt it was not worth my time in management. Thirdly, I did not want the risk. Despite the boasts of many, the reality is that few people actually pay off their card each month. By your post, it seems to me that you will be one of the rare few. However, if you are expending 5K per month, your income must be above the US national average. Is $600 really worth it? Perhaps budgeting for Christmas would be a better option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fad9d64626f90023c966ca639615a523",
"text": "Every reward program has to have a funding source. If the card gives you x percent back on all purchases. That means that their business is structured to entice you to pump more transactions through the system. Either their other costs are lower, or the increased business allows them to make more money off of late fees, and interest. If the card has you earn extra points for buying a type of item or from a type of store (home stores improvement in the Spring), they are trying to make sure you use their card for what can be a significant amount of business during a small window of time. Sometimes they cap it by saying 5% cash back at home improvement stores during the spring but only on the first $1500 of purchases. That limits it to $75 maximum. Adding more business for them, makes more money for them. Groceries and gas are a good year round purchase categories. Yes there is some variation depending on the season, and the weather, but overall there is not an annual cliff once the season ends. Gas and groceries account for thousands of dollars a year these are not insignificant categories, for many families are recession proof. If they perceive a value from this type of offer they will change their buying behavior. My local grocery store has a deal with a specific gas station. This means that they made a monetary deal. Because you earn points at the grocery store and spend points at the gas station, the grocery store is paying some compensation to the gas station every time you use points. The gas station must be seeing an increase in business so theoretically they don't get 100% compensation from the grocery store. In cases where credit cards give airline miles, the credit card company buys the miles from the airline at a discount because they know that a significant number of miles will never be used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "890b0d4599ec10abf87cae7906c16e78",
"text": "Cash back from credit cards is handled separately than the rest of the purchase, i.e. interest begins accumulating on that day, and likely at a higher rate, and usually comes out of a lower limit than the credit allotted to that card. Given all these differences, and the obvious revenue-generation situation for the lender, it makes sense for them to give the store an incentive, rather than penalize them further, for the use of such a feature. Note: I am not privy to the inner-workings or agreements between large stores and credit lenders, so I cannot guarantee any of this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d0741eee12de03a7beb55b8a9fe3b40",
"text": "Set up a meeting with the bank that handles your business checking account. Go there in person and bring your business statements: profit and loss, balance sheet, and a spreadsheet showing your historical cash flow. The goal is to get your banker to understand your business and your needs and also for you to be on a first-name basis with your banker for an ongoing business relationship. Tell them you want to establish credit and you want a credit card account with $x as the limit. Your banker might be able to help push your application through even with your credit history. Even if you can't get the limit you want, you'll be on your way and can meet again with your banker in 6 or 12 months. Once your credit is re-established you'll be able to shop around and apply for other rewards cards. One day you might want a line of credit or a business loan. Establishing a relationship with your banker ahead of time will make that process easier if and when the time comes. Continue to meet with him or her at least annually, and bring updated financial statements each time. If nothing else, this process will help you analyze your business, so the process itself is useful even if nothing comes of it immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dac5b86f380989b690c52d2169211410",
"text": "Some large merchants do not give discounts for cash payments as this does not work out any cheaper for them, vs Credit Card payments. In Credit Card typically fees given to all the 3 parties (Merchant bank, Issuer Bank and Visa) would be around 3%. If cash payment is made, and the amounts are large (say at Walmart / K-Mart they have to deposit such cash at Banks, Have a provision to Storing Cash at Stores, People to count the cash. So essentially they will have to pay for Cash Officer to count, Bigger Safe to store, Transport & Security & Insurance to take Cash to Bank Plus Banks charge around 1% charge for counting the large cash being deposited. This cash would be in local branch where as the operations are centralized and Walmart/K-Mart would need the money in central account, it takes time to get it transferred to a central account, and there is a fee charged by Bank to do this automatically. On the other hand, smaller merchants would like cash as they are operated stand-alone and most of their purchases are also cash. Hence they would tend to give a discount for cash payment if any.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d9579caffe876adaaec0604f08c7549",
"text": "Currency exchange is rather the norm than the exception in international wire transfers, so the fact that the amount needs to be exchanged should have no impact at all. The processing time depends on the number of participating banks and their speeds. Typically, between Europe and the US, one or two business days are the norm. Sending from Other countries might involve more steps (banks) which each takes a bit of time. However, anything beyond 5 business days is not normal. Consider if there are external delays - how did you initiate the sending? Was it in person with an agent of the bank, who might have put it on a stack, and they type it in only a day later (or worse)? Or was it online, so it is in the system right away? On the receiver side, how did you/your friend check? Could there be a delay by waiting for an account statement? Finally, and that is the most common reason, were all the numbers, names, and codes absolutely correct? Even a small mismatch in name spelling might trigger the receiving bank to not allocate the money into the account. Either way, if you contact the sender bank, you will be able to make them follow up on it. They must be able to trace where they money went, and where it currently is. If it is stuck, they will be able to get it ‘unstuck’.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c83a1d4bb6f842ba22a9a83964c4b907
|
Will a credit card company close my account if I stop using it?
|
[
{
"docid": "2c9c75c629be6d5071b24dbc148034f2",
"text": "Please realize that your issuer can close the account for any number of reasons. Inactivity is one, as having a credit line open costs them money and if you never charge anything, the company doesn't get any transaction fees from vendors nor does the company get to charge you any interest. An occasional charge is likely to keep your card from being closed automatically, but it is not a guarantee. Another reason they may close the account is that you have other bad marks show up on your credit score, or their criteria for offering you the card change so you no longer match their target demographic. I have a credit card issued by my credit union that I have not used for a couple of years. They will not close the card account because my other accounts are still very profitable for them. If I were not an otherwise profitable customer, I wouldn't be surprised if they closed my credit card account. If you are serious about keeping the account open, you should probably have more than a trivial amount of usage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2247122968b09670d2cec77d633d95f",
"text": "\"There is no universal answer here. Some card issuers will. Some that will close the account will warn you first. For my \"\"sock drawer\"\" cards I'll try to take each out semi-annually to make a single transaction, then put it back in the drawer. I've heard you should charge something quarterly, I've never had one closed with semi-annual charges.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dde69407a68c2f0f4c5994a7db97627f",
"text": "The answer is maybe. I had a Chase card without a purchase in over 4 years get canceled out of the blue, without so much as a notification telling me it was at risk for cancelation. They told me they typically close accounts after 24 months of inactivity (not including card fees) but let mine go for longer because I have several other credit cards, savings and checking accounts with them. I would recommend spending at least once per year on the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ceccbac66e27f4e8dd3aa3bd00de91a",
"text": "\"Assuming the question is \"\"will they close it for inactivity (alone)\"\".. the answer is \"\"Nope\"\" ... unequivocally. Update: < My answer is geared to credit Cards issues by companies that deal in credit, not merchandise (i.e. store cards, retailer cards, etc). Retailers (like Amazon, etc), want to sell goods and are in the credit card business to generate sales. Banks and credit companies (about whom I am referring) make their money primarily on interest and secondarily on service charges (either point of use charged to the vendor that accepts payment, or fees charged to the user).> The only major issuer I will say that it might be possible is Discover, because I never kept a Discover card. I also don't keep department store cards, which might possibly do this; but I do doubt it in either of those cases too. My answer is based on Having 2 AMEX cards (Optima and Blue) and multiple other Visa/MC's that I NEVER use... and most of these I have not for over 10+ years. Since I am also presuming that you are also not talking about an account that charges a yearly or other maintenance fee.. Why would they keep the account open with the overhead (statements and other mailings,etc)? Because you MIGHT use it. You MIGHT not be able to pay it off each month. Because you MIGHT end up paying thousands in interest over many years. The pennies they pay for maintaining your account and sending you new cards with chip technology, etc.. are all worth the gamble of getting recouped from you! This is why sales people waste their time with lots of people who will not buy their product, even though it costs them time and money to prospect.. because they MIGHT buy. Naturally, there are a multitude of reasons for canceling a card; but inactivity is not one. I have no less than 10+ \"\"inactive\"\" cards, one that has a balance, and two I use \"\"infrequently\"\". I really would not mind if they closed all those accounts.. but they won't ;) So enjoy your AMEX knowing that your Visa will be there when you need/want it.. The bank that issues your Visa is banking on it! (presuming you don't foul up financially) Cheers!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21247d238d7a1c233e9f5a6dc582682c",
"text": "The workaround solution is to simply avoid having an exactly zero balance on your account. Thus for inactive credit cards that I want to keep around for emergency use, I always leave a small positive balance on the card. The credit card company reserves the right to cancel my card at any time, but a positive balance would force them to send me a check for the privilege of doing so. A positive balance avoids making the account appear inactive and makes it cheaper for them to simply leave the account open.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "334bff4f28f783af0492485b984f5c1e",
"text": "I'm in the US, and I can't speak for all credit cards, but I have done this in the past. I've paid extra on my credit card, and had a positive balance on my credit card account. The purchases made after paying extra were applied to the balance, and if there was money left over on the statement closing date, I didn't owe anything that month. Of course, I didn't incur any interest charges, but I never pay interest anyway, as I always pay my statement in full each month and never take a cash advance on my credit card. You could call your credit card company and ask them what will happen, or if you are feeling adventurous, you could just send them some extra money and see what happens. Most likely, they will just apply it to your account and give you a positive balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6eeebb604046b2dd9274a55dbadbaf4f",
"text": "Your credit score is definitely affected by the age of your credit accounts, so if you frequently close one card and open another new one, you're adversely affecting the overall average age of accounts. This is something to consider and whether it is worth what you're trying to achieve. Sometimes, if you're a good customer and are insistent enough, you can simply call your credit card company and use the threat of closing your account in favor of another card that offers something attractive to get your current bank to sweeten its incentives to keep your business. I know many people who've done this with real success, and they spare themselves the hassle of obtaining a new card and suffering the short term consequences on their credit report. This might be an avenue worth trying before you just close the account and move on. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f6ad89054cedd1e9a346afac2308349",
"text": "The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) says that account history will stay on your credit report as a closed account for 7 years, and then it will drop off, just like any other bad or good mark on your credit (aside from bankruptcies which stay on reports for 10 years, and can be asked about for the rest of your life). The presence of a new credit card will do more to lower your score in the short term than closing an old credit card. On a related note, reporting a card as lost or stolen can also show up as a different, closed account, even if you keep the same account open with the creditor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3333d869722843e63a4782d30d9e231f",
"text": "Some years ago a call center operator told me a bit more than they probably should have. They like to see a lot of money go through the card, but very little staying on the card. Yes, they make money on the interest but one card defaulting blows away the profit on a lot of other cards. The 3% take from the merchants is both reliable and up-front, not 6 months down the line when (and if) you pay the interest. So if you want to make your credit card company happy, pay your bills in full every month. I have credit far beyond my actual means because I run work expenses on my personal card, I was told they didn't care (and had already guessed) that it wasn't my money. The point was I was handling things in a way they liked. Not quite at Palladium status, but cards with $200 annual fees are mine for the asking, and I haven't paid interest since the early 1990's.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "004045a3f04f04b4337bbbe4ccc90771",
"text": "Check out /r/personalfinance for more detailed advice. Not sure your question. Yes, cancelling it will cause it to disappear from your credit report. Apply for your own card right now (a free rewards one ideally) if your credit it good enough and you have a job. Never pay interest and keep that card and your credit will naturally head to 720+ with no negative marks over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22338a43b9006dea9a3662a5d65947de",
"text": "Nope. Or at least, if it were possible the company offering such a credit card would quickly go out of business. Credit card companies make money off of fees from the merchants the user is buying from and from the users themselves. If they charged no fees to the user on cash advances and, in fact, gave a 3% back on cash advances, then it would be possible for a user to: The company would lose money until they stopped the loophole or went out of business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63d342f0ad89564e38df7ece1bc661f8",
"text": "First off, congratulations on taking care of your finances and paying off your cards! Takes a lot of discipline. If your next oldest card is just a year apart, you can safely close this card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce8df3b5edca7c3e7cf625537995bd2f",
"text": "Credit card companies are businesses. Businesses will make any decision that makes them money. So does it make them money to cancel your account? It's a simple cost-benefit analysis: you having an account with them will probably give them some benefit for very little cost to them. The only real cost associated with an open account is someone who uses the card but doesn't pay, but they're pretty sure you won't be doing that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4596827bd6ac7951cd9af1fd78ba478",
"text": "The card-holder agreement does not explicitly specify a minimum spending requirement. It does though, have the following catch-all clause for closing the account: We may: • cancel your Account, • suspend the ability to make charges, • cancel or suspend any feature on your Account, and • notify merchants that your Account has been cancelled or suspended. If we do any of these, you must still pay us for all charges under the terms of this Agreement. We may do any of these things at our discretion, even if you pay on time and your Account is not in default. If your Account is cancelled, you must destroy your cards. We may agree to reinstate your Account after a cancellation. If we do this, we may: • reinstate any additional cards issued on your Account, • charge you any applicable annual fees, and • charge you a fee for reinstating the Account. One would suspect that American Express would happily collect the fee from anyone who holds the card, but is not using it (in any way). Someone, though, that isn't spending the expected amount of money, but is availing themselves of the 24 hour concierge service, etc., would probably find their privileges revoked and/or their card canceled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c39644834b92aa943e87d1ec90e0826b",
"text": "You don't need to use an open line of credit to help your credit score. You didn't ask this, but another option is to not cut up the card and keep the account open, even if you don't use it. I mention this because sometimes when you are calling in or setting up an online account to service the card, you may need to have the expiration date and CVV code on hand. This has burned me a few times as I had to hunt around for a card I rarely ever use. That being said, if you are worried that you might use the card if you know it's there, then sure, cut it up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c0e577710a6a0c468ead87e343577e1",
"text": "Assuming you don't plan on continuing to use the card frequently, the best advice I've heard is to leave them open unless they have an annual fee. Also, leaving it open with a zero balance doesn't help your credit score as much as using it a few times a year (even for small amounts) because it will eventually shift to an inactive state that is less positive for your credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68783a5b04d0137e5486a0089d3501a1",
"text": "The two factors that will hurt you the most is the age of the credit account, and your available credit to debt ratio. Removing an older account takes that account out of the equation of calculating your overall credit score, which can hurt significantly, especially if that is the only, or one of just a couple, of open credit lines you have available. Reducing your available credit will make your current debt look bigger than what it was before you closed your account. Going over a certain percentage for your debt to available credit can make you look less favorable to lenders. [As stated above, closing a credit card does remove it from the credit utilization calculation which can raise your debt/credit ratio. It does not, however; affect the average age of credit cards. Even closed accounts stay on your credit report for ten years and are credited toward average age of cards. When the closed credit card falls off your report, only then, will the average age of credit cards be recalculated.] And may I suggest getting your free credit report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com . It's the only place considered 'official' to receive your free annual credit report as told by the FTC. Going to other 3rd party sites to pull your credit report can risk your information being traded or sold. EDIT: To answer your second point, there are numerous factors that banks and creditors will consider depending on the type of card you're applying for. The heavier the personal rewards (cash back, flyer miles, discounts, etc.) the bigger the stipulation. Some factors to consider are your income to debt ratio, income to available credit ratio, number of revolving lines of credit, debt to available credit ratio, available credit to debt ratio, and whether or not you have sufficient equity and/or assets to cover both your debt and available credit. They want to make sure that if you go crazy and max out all of your lines of credit, that you are capable of paying it all back in a sufficient amount of time. In other words, your volatility as a debt-consumer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70cbde4e59f8d13443d6583130e5122e",
"text": "\"Speaking from personal experience: I have had a credit card canceled for exactly this reason. It's happened to me three times, with two different providers (NatWest and Nationwide). After the third instance I stopped bothering to even carry a credit card. It's worth noting that all three were \"\"free\"\" cards in the sense that I paid no flat fee or subscription to get the cards. The only way the issuer could make a profit on them was through interest. I was also not a frequent user, carrying the card for convenience more than anything else, although I did make purchases on all three. So it's certainly a possibility. But I live in the UK and I'm guessing most of your other respondents do not. It may be a practice that's more common here than in the US. That might even explain the origin of the rumour.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6e87baff7f70673898d614e256331f5",
"text": "Quant has been an interesting part of finance, but I always thought they missed something really important. The standard methods of statistical analysis can’t explain what’s going on with economy and firms. Otherwise, quant hedge funds would have been making money all the time. The conventional quants find patterns in data, test them then go live. These models work until some fundamental (or not so fundamental) shifts in the market. Then they find themselves back in the drawing board looking for their next model. This kind of analysis seems like a lot of grind for fairly unpredictable returns. There are more and more companies that don’t lend themselves well to fundamental analysis as we know it. Financial data and some poor flawed human analysts insights alone can no longer explain much. This is a unique set of challenges that Data Science, more specifically AI could solve. The speed at which AI can learn and process information is just mind boggling. AI can learn the entire financial history of decision making in minutes. It can recognize patterns, make sophisticated analysis and constantly update its probability tables as the new information comes in. This is something no human can compete with. Imagine a quantitative engine that adapts as the economy changes. It could draw heaps of unstructured data about a company, learn from it in real time, make course corrections and spit out its recommendations. To the degree that human decision making is involved in the strategic decision making of companies, we will need the depth of context that can be provided by humans, but I see the field moving away from excel spreadsheets with fairly poor predicting capacity to AI models with strong predictive capacity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "235844a2d25fb6628b055a1f80b77c6c",
"text": "\"Because this question seems like it will stick around, I will flesh out my comments into an actual answer. I apologize if this does not answer your question as-asked, but I believe these are the real issues at stake. For the actual questions you have asked, I have paraphrased and bolded below: Firstly, don't do a real estate transaction without talking to a lawyer at some stage [note: a real estate broker is not a lawyer]. Secondly, as with all transactions with family, get everything in writing. Feelings get hurt when someone mis-remembers a deal and wants the terms to change in the future. Being cold and calculated now, by detailing all money in and out, will save you from losing a brother in the future. \"\"Should my brother give me money as a down payment, and I finance the remainder with the bank?\"\" If the bank is not aware that this is what is happening, this is fraud. Calling something a 'gift' when really it's a payment for part ownership of 'your' house is fraud. There does not seem to be any debate here (though I am not a lawyer). If the bank is aware that this is what is happening, then you might be able to do this. However, it is unlikely that the bank will allow you to take out a mortgage on a house which you will not fully own. By given your brother a share in the future value in the house, the bank might not be able to foreclose on the whole house without fighting the brother on it. Therefore they would want him on the mortgage. The fact that he can't get another mortgage means (a) The banks may be unwilling to allow him to be involved at all, and (b) it becomes even more critical to not commit fraud! You are effectively tricking the bank into thinking that you have the money for a down payment, and also that your brother is not involved! Now, to the actual question at hand - which I answer only for use on other transactions that do not meet the pitfalls listed above: This is an incredibly difficult question - What happens to your relationship with your brother when the value of the house goes down, and he wants to sell, but you want to stay living there? What about when the market changes and one of you feels that you're getting a raw deal? You don't know where the housing market will go. As an investment that's maybe acceptable (because risk forms some of the basis of returns). But with you getting to live there and with him taking only the risk, that risk is maybe unfairly on him. He may not think so today while he's optimistic, but what about tomorrow if the market crashes? Whatever the terms of the agreement are, get them in writing, and preferably get them looked at by a lawyer. Consider all scenarios, like what if one of you wants to sell, does the other have the right to delay, or buy you out. Or what if one if you wants to buy the other out? etc etc etc. There are too many clauses to enumerate here, which is why you need to get a lawyer.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5b3e6089a3b2725ee5bf6c8717c97453
|
How to determine contractor hourly rate and employee salary equivalents?
|
[
{
"docid": "57bf2196d8e9d5f568780851408f9248",
"text": "Here are a few points to consider: Taxes: As a consultant, you will be responsible for the employer portion of the Social Security and Medicare taxes, and you might have to pay for state unemployment insurance and state disability insurance, as well. Office expenses: As a consultant, you may be required to buy your own laptop, pay for your own software licenses and buy other office-related supplies. For higher-end services, you may be setting up a complete office and even hire your own secretary and other support staff. Benefits: As a consultant, you will be responsible for your own health insurance, retirement plan and other benefits that an employer would ordinarily provide. Education: Your employer will likely pay for books and magazine subscriptions and send you to seminars, in order to keep your skills current; your client won't. Liability: Consultants face certain liabilities that employees don't, and have to factor the cost of insuring against those risks into their rate. Let's say you're a software developer, and your faulty code causes a nuclear plant's reactor core to overheat and melt down. As an employee, you'll get fired. As a consultant, you will get sued. Even consultants in low-risk fields can easily shell out thousands of dollars per year for a basic general liability policy. Sales & marketing: Don't forget that when your contract ends, you will have expenses associated with finding your next client, including the opportunity cost of not getting paid for your services during that time. All these factors contribute to your overhead, which you have to roll into your consulting rate. You should also add a margin of profit -- after all, as you're in business for yourself, you should be compensated for taking this entrepreneurial risk. If you're looking for a quick over-the-thumb rule, you can figure that your equivalent consulting rate should be about twice what you would be paid hourly as an employee. Assuming you work 2,000 hours a year, if you would receive a $100,000 salary, your hourly rate should be $100. Of course, this is only a very rough guideline. Ultimately, your rate will mostly be influenced by how established you are and how much your services are in demand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24eb3e483f2345ef2008c1dcd038a5f0",
"text": "Take $100,000 base salary, x 1.5 = $150,000 contractor salary, divide by 1,872 hours = $80/hr",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "39111f34d9ea66aec5d967ac0e8e8f75",
"text": "Nice attempt at trying to obfuscate the math by suggesting your wage was half of what you actually got paid. You were paid $9/hr, not $4.50. Was your CEO spending billions of other people's money playing martian when he could have been paying his employees instead?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eea277229a31bb3a52cb07a41ce3bd35",
"text": "\"If you're really a part-time worker, then there are some simple considerations.... The remote working environment, choice of own hours, and non-guarantee of work availability point to your \"\"part-time\"\" situation being more like a consultancy, and that would normally double or triple the gross hourly rate. But if they're already offering or paying you a low hourly figure, they are unlikely to give you consultant rates.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5597c924fe5b5e96210502d7d8756eba",
"text": "\"Why would you just look at salary and not total comp for a first year? It's pretty misleading to say \"\"$60k to work 100 hours a week\"\" when you do in fact get paid well above that. Also, in my 2 years of consulting, I've never come anywhere close to 100 hour work weeks. It usually fluctuates between 45-60 hours. Not to mention Fridays are usually pretty casual/relaxed days since you're working from home or in your home office doing random firm activities/networking.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c16909161420015cfe515d752c82b07b",
"text": "Okay but still three people at $12/hr is $16 more per hour than one person at $20/hr. And if anything paying taxes and benefits for one employee is cheaper than doing so for three. I still don't see how u/NEVERDOUBTED asserts that the three at $12/hr cost less. Where's the math, man???",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4f182954cbea0e8f5df43839a121238",
"text": "I'm trying to get the numbers to work. I built a quick spreadsheet that allocated the lost time as stated against the overall pay increase, assuming 1.5x for more than 40 hours. I can't find a reasonable number of hours worked where a 9% cut in hours outweighs the near 20% increase in wages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9b219180d9e2d78b21e5d2f6787fe61",
"text": "\"The answer depends on this: If you had to hire someone to do what you are doing in the S-corp, what would you pay them? If you are doing semi-unskilled work part-time, then $20k might be reasonable. If you are a professional working full time, it's too low. Don't forget that, in addition to \"\"billable\"\" work, you are also doing office tasks, such as invoicing and bookkeeping, that the IRS will also want to see you getting paid for. There was an important court ruling on this subject recently: Watson v. Commissioner. Watson owned an S-Corp where he was the sole employee. The S-Corp itself was a 25% owner in a very successful accounting firm that Watson worked through. All of the revenue that Watson generated at the accounting firm was paid to the S-Corp, which then paid Watson through salary and distributions. Watson was paying himself $24k a year in salary and taking over $175k a year in distributions. For comparison, even first-year accountants at the firm were making more than $24k a year in salary. The IRS determined that this salary amount was too low. To determine an appropriate amount for Watson's salary, the IRS did a study of the salaries of peers in firms of the same size as the firm Watson was working with, taking into account that owners of firms earn a higher salary than non-owners. The number that the IRS arrived at was $93k. Watson was allowed to take the rest ($80k+ each year) as distributions. Again, this number was based on a study of the salaries of peers. It was far short of the $200k+ that the S-Corp was pulling in from the accounting firm. Clearly, Watson was paying himself far too low of a salary. But even at this extreme example, where Watson's S-Corp was directly getting all of its revenue from one accounting firm in which Watson was an owner, the IRS still did not conclude that all of the revenue should have been salary and subject to payroll taxes. You should ask an accountant or attorney for advice. They can help you determine an appropriate amount for your salary. Don't be afraid of an audit, but make sure that you can defend your choices if you do get audited. If your choices are based on professional advice, that will help your case. See these articles for more information:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f48d2497330bc421990b575863046a8",
"text": "In accrual accounting, you account for items on the income statement when the service has been delivered - in this case, the service that your employees are providing your company. Because of this, you incur the expense in the fiscal year that your employees work for you. So, you incur the expense, and net income decreases by (1-t)*wage expense. Net income decreases, so owners' equity decreases; to balance you credit wages payable. Once the wages are paid, you decrease the liabilities side (wages payable) and offset it with a Cash change on the assets side.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "730bf896fd9945161b247899375340c3",
"text": "I'm a freelance programmer, reverse-engineer, and network engineer. I do quarterly 1099 filings using a cheap local accounting firm. I did them on my own at first; not that hard.. You deduct from sum the percentage for that earning-tier issued by the IRS.. $500.00 for writing algorithms on a timer? Yikes.. I did topcoder once but it didn't pay much then it was only good for portfolio.. No way I would race to do algorithms for third-world-rate capital..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6944f9c0b50e5048b10f8ec9bfc045df",
"text": "Software Contractors are not employees of the company that is procuring the software. Software Contractors necessarily work for another legal business entity. There is a business to business relationship between the procurer of the software and the entity producing the software. Therefore, the company procuring the software is not required to pay a minimum wage, or adhere to any other employment law. When any individual or company orders a software product and agrees to pay for it, that is a fixed priced contract. This happens millions of times a day. The amount of time taken to produce the software has no direct bearing on price. For instance, there is no minimum price for Microsoft Word based on the number of hours taken to produce it. Generally a Software Contractor will be a director and shareholder of a limited liability corporation. Directors are exempt from the standard protection offered under employment law. If the company producing the software was employing non-directors to produce the software, rather than sub-contracting to another business then employment law would apply.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cd06f09541ff85e29fb9bb2fa1596e7",
"text": "This sounds very like disguised employment. You act like an employee of the company, but your official relationship with them is as a contractor. You gain none of the protection you get from being an employee, and this may make you cheaper, less risky and more desirable for the company who is hiring you. Depending on your country you may also pay corporation tax rather than income tax, which may represent a very significant saving. Also, the company hiring you may not have to pay PAYE, national insurance, stakeholder pension, etc. This arrangement is normal and legal providing you genuinely are acting as a subcontractor. However if you are behaving as an employee (desk at the company, company email, have to work specific hours in a specific location, no ability to subcontract, etc.) you may be classified as a disguised employee. In the UK it used to be common practice for highly paid employees to set up shell companies to avoid tax. This will now get you into hot water. Google IR35 It sounds like your relationship in this case is directly with the recruiter. You will have to consider if the recruiter is acting as your employer, or if you remain a genuinely independent agent. The duration of your contract with the recruiter will have a bearing on this. In the UK there are a whole series of tests for disguised employment. This is a good arrangement provided you go in with your eyes open and an awareness of the legislation. However you should absolutely check the rules that apply in your country before entering into this agreement. You could potentially be stung very badly indeed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "938db83ce9d0d8d64a670ca38b919a3b",
"text": "Note: This is not professional tax advice. If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000? US$100,000? I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own. Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation. Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising. Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors. Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned. Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes. BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cbb996244fc60be4ce51aa99ccabc02",
"text": "The short Answer is NO, HMRC do not like disguised employment which is what this is as you fall under IR35 you can bill them via an umbrella company and you should be charging the contractor rate not a permie rate. http://www.contractoruk.com/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5630e94014578741255ef17b238ba8fe",
"text": "There's a lot more cost in wages than just the hourly wage itself. As you got taxes that is split between the employer and employee. You also have general overhead costs (ie paperwork). If they are full time employees you then have the costs of benefits as well in there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0d32795fb708850657d5f006b8a351b",
"text": "\"We used an internal billing system where we have Project numbers, overheads, and proposal numbers. Projects may or may not have a client backing them, Overheads are strictly that, overhead costs. In the chargeback system we utilize (written by yours truly) we devised an SLO (Service Level Offering) which is the default, PC and Default software such as Office, Adobe Reader, Windows etc... and the hardware itself plus depreciation. This, when analyzed with total Business Unit working manhours, can devise an hourly rate that we apply to all Projects/Overheads/Proposals through time booked to these account through the Timecard system. A rate of 3.00 per manhour worked is applied accross the business Unit. Additional costs are divied by percentage based on Timecards. If Employee A charges 50% time to Project 1, 40% to Project 2 and 10% to project C, then those percentages will be applied to divy out the additional IT costs to the various projects, and thus making these items billable back to the client. This lowers our Overhead costs, transfers cost from Cost Centre to Profit Centre and lowers our GMAF. As for external to IT, it often prevents shit from getting done. \"\"Hey man, can you help me for a second?\"\" \"\"RAAAAAAWWW GIMME CHARGE NUMBER!!!!!!!!\"\" and creates internal animosity between project managers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "881d9743c9290902d46440ea7dadc826",
"text": "This is a snapshot of the Jan '17 puts for XBI, the biotech index. The current price is $65.73. You can see that even the puts far out of the money are costly. The $40 put, if you get a fill at $3, means a 10X return if the index drops to $10. A 70X return for a mild, cyclic, drop isn't likely to happen. Sharing youtube links is an awful way to ask a question. The first was far too long to waste my time. The second was a reasonable 5 minutes, but with no example, only vague references to using puts to protect you in bad years. Proper asset allocation is more appropriate for the typical investor than any intricate option-based hedging strategy. I've successfully used option strategies on the up side, multiplying the returns on rising stocks, but have never been comfortable creating a series of puts to hit the jackpot in an awful year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
be861f0b16fbfe61eb118e98fdb3e9fd
|
What is a “convertible note”?
|
[
{
"docid": "f0656add052a98a8db4a16389833068c",
"text": "Source, see if you have access to it Convertible notes are often used by angel investors who wish to fund businesses without establishing an explicit valuation of the company in which they are investing. When an investor purchases equity in a startup, the purchase price of the equity implies a company valuation. For example, if an investor purchases a 10 per cent ownership stake in a company, and pay $1m for that stake, this implies that the company is worth $10m. Some early stage investors may wish to avoid placing a value on the company in this way, because this in turn will affect the terms under which later-stage investors will invest in the company. Convertible notes are structured as loans at the time the investment is made. The outstanding balance of the loan is automatically converted to equity when a later equity investor appears, under terms that are governed by the terms set by the later-stage equity investor. An equity investor is someone who purchases equity in a company. Example:- Suppose an angel investor invests $100,000 using a convertible note. Later, an equity investor invests $1m and receives 10% of the company's shares. In the simplest possible case, the initial angel investor's convertible note would convert to 1/10th of the equity investor's claim. Depending on the exact structure of the convertible note, however, the angel investor may also receive extra shares to compensate them for the additional risk associated with being an earlier investor The worst-case scenario would be if the issuing company initially performed well, meaning that the debt would be converted into shares, and subsequently went bankrupt. The converted shares would become worthless, but the holder of the note would no longer have any recourse. Will twitter have to sell their offices and liquidate staff to close this debt? This depends on the seniority(priority) of the debt. Debt is serviced according to seniority. The higher seniority debts will be paid off first and then only the lower seniority debts be serviced. This will all be in the agreements when you enter into a transaction. When you say liquidate staff you mean sell off their assets and not sell their staff into slavery.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d3fcc98a23ecf60d847d502cb52a0209",
"text": "In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "181fcdb8c771ba8b96ff97a4673d3219",
"text": "Sounds to me like this restriction is limited to banks as issuers of convertible debt, which may affect their compliance with capital requirements, but is unlikely to affect the overall market for convertible debt. Also the restriction is limited to retail investors, and I think most convertible debt offerings are not aimed at retail investors, so this restriction seems pretty limited to me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07807c7d9d6a1b20798c2c6096b99d17",
"text": "Yep. You know, for banks to use against your deposits which are now legally interpreted as unsecured loans or some such. I don't think we can print big again. Happened in [Cyprus](http://rt.com/business/cyprus-crisis-bailout-deposit-631/). Tinfoil hat is optional.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aabd62574e0e4c620672a13de2a796d",
"text": "Its participating preferred with a 1x liquidation preference. Very unfriendly for the company owner. Most startups these days are seeded with convertible notes because there's less thinking about the valuation of the company; that question is booted to the series A. its also easier to draw up the legal docs; pretty much a standard loan agreement. Finally, it can be far friendlier for the owner depending on if the note is an uncapped note. This is expensive financing and your friend can definitely find cheaper money if he looks for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bdc9f43a6dbeae09b8d7384d8c5badd",
"text": "\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \"\"Restricted stock\"\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \"\"The Negative Coupon Bond\"\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \"\"Incentive Stock Options\"\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfbb547b620fea17de7b1d8d8b42af06",
"text": "it means that 20% of my closing balance each day will be added up over the course of a month and then given once the month is over. Yes apart from the typo 0.20% of every day balance. The rate itself is quoted for a year, so for a day it will be (Px0.20)/(100x365). Where P = The principal amount of every day. The credits will be every month-end. For leap year will be 366. Check with your Bank quite a few Banks still use the old convention of 360 days in year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15f11c4326b15fa7637a697314e30e43",
"text": "And the fact that if notes trade up high enough they tend to get taken out with lower yielding notes (pending the call schedule), so in theory there is more limited upside in high-yield, whereas equity could theoretically trade to infinity. The positives for high-yield is that they generate monthly cash flow via coupon payments and have less down-side relative to equities. Naturally this lower down-side comes at the expense of lower up-side as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "031daa43ef28ab8f0178cc542cea1d56",
"text": "\"Since you want to know exactly what \"\"yield\"\" means, let's get all the details of the security down first. Treasury Bills are 0-1 year and do not pay interest/coupons. The yield comes from buying the T-Bill at a discount. For example, you buy a T-Bill for $99 and it pays $100 when it matures, and the yield over that holding period is 1/99. When people talk about \"\"yield\"\" they are generally talking about annualized yield unless stated otherwise. Treasury Notes are 2-10 years. They pay interest semi-annually. Treasury Bonds are 20-30 years and they also pay interest semi-annually. Again, \"\"yield\"\" is typically the annualized yield, or the two semi-annual interest payments added together (without compounding). These have interest payments so they are typically sold at par. They may trade a premium/discount afterwards. TIPS pay a constant coupon rate, but the principal is adjusted up and down with inflation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bdaaccecc7a6d0050c1aae306971a78",
"text": "\"By protected you mean what exactly? In the US, generally you'd get a promissory note signed by B saying \"\"B promises to repay A such and such amount on such and such terms\"\". In case of default you can sue in a court of law, and the promissory note will be the evidence for your case. In case of B declaring bankruptcy, you'd submit the promissory note to the bankruptcy court to get in line with all the other creditors. Similarly in all the rest of the world, you make a contract, you enforce the contract in courts.\"",
"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": "29aa93d3c3af81a6236d2e1905ada5a1",
"text": "This site has the best information I could find, other than a Bloomberg terminal: Quantumonline.com QUANTUMONLINE.COM SECURITY DESCRIPTION: SCANA Corp., 2009 Series A, 7.70% Enhanced Junior Subordinated Notes, issued in $25 denominations, redeemable at the issuer's option on or after 1/30/2015 at $25 per share plus accrued and unpaid interest, and maturing 1/30/2065 which may be extended to 1/30/2080. Interest distributions of 7.70% ($1.925) per annum are paid quarterly on 1/30, 4/30, 7/30 & 10/30 to holders of record on the record date which is the business day prior to the payment date (NOTE: the ex-dividend date is at least 2 business days prior to the record date). Distributions paid by these debt securities are interest and as such are NOT eligible for the preferential 15% to 20% tax rate on dividends and are also NOT eligible for the dividend received deduction for corporate holders. Units are expected to trade flat, which means accrued interest will be reflected in the trading price and the purchasers will not pay and the sellers will not receive any accrued and unpaid interest. The Notes are unsecured and subordinated obligations of the company and will rank equally with all existing and future unsecured and subordinated indebtedness of the company. See the IPO prospectus for further information on the debt securities by clicking on the ‘Link to IPO Prospectus’ provided below.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c05196cadb750e8859fb1537cd59459",
"text": "I don't know much about the convertible debt space, but it seems like this regulation may be a positive sign that the government is being proactive in preventing financial institutions from developing overly complex debt structures (at least on an on-going basis) that get the global economy back into trouble. Does anyone with a more informed opinion than my own have something to share?",
"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": "50293691274cf7b2b3f290670006f50a",
"text": "Chinese currency is not freely convertible. Its exchange rate is not determined by the market but rather by the Chinese government. Thus the counter-intuitive result. In essence, the Chinese government is subsidizing exports (which is reasonable since exports is what drives the Chinese economy).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db66fcbc02aaeae3f5d45af4edbf187c",
"text": "\"MBS is a fairly general term \"\"Mortgage Backed Securities\"\" which simply means that the bond is collateralized with mortgages. Pass throughs are a type of MBS that is untranched: all bond holders of the deal are receiving the same interest and principal payments, there is no senior or subordinate class of bonds. Agency passthroughs bond holders receive any principal and interest payments paid by the loans in the pool, minus a slice of the interest payment that pays billing and insurance fees (servicing and guarantee fees, usually a .5% slice of the mortgage interest rate). On agency product (including Ginnies), if a loan defaults it will be bought out of the pool, with the bondholder receiving all of the expected principal and any interest due on the loan. Agency deals with different classes of bonds are usually called REMICs. Passthrough may also be split into principal-only (PO) and interest-only (IO) pieces. There is also a huge forward market in soon-to-be-issued passthroughs called the TBA market. Ginnie Mae has two slightly different programs referred to as Ginnie I and Ginnie II. Ginnie also has commercial and construction loan financial products. Freddie and Fannie have the same type of financial products as Ginnie, but there are differences in the sort of loans that Ginnie has vs the other agencies, as well as subtle minor differences between the contract terms of the securities. Ginnie is also more explicitly guaranteed by the federal government. You may want to look at: http://www.ginniemae.gov/index.asp (especially the \"\"For Investors\"\" and \"\"For Issuers\"\" sections.) Wikipedia's MBS may be more clear than my description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security#Types\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
17fd2106b80dc8049a68899a15b81369
|
Why was my Credit Limit Increase Denied?
|
[
{
"docid": "9cca679a295a5864a66e8217c08eff7b",
"text": "\"I think they gave you the answer: You haven't previously shown that you can run that particular card up to (near) its existing maximum and then pay it off, so they don't have a strong indication that you can handle that large an unsecured loan. Generally, requests to have the limits raised when there isn't evidence that the customer is finding the current limit inconvenient are going to be considered suspicious. Remember, a great credit rating does not require that they consider you a good risk -- it's just one of the things they consider. Why do you need the limit raised? Have you tried contacting the bank's credit department directly and discussing what they will or won't let you do? Re paying off the card every month: Remember, they do get a processing fee from the vendor. They'd prefer that we paid interest (I'm told the term of art for those of us who don't is \"\"deadbeats\"\"), but they certainly don't lose money when we don't. And they'd generally rather have us be loyal customers who MIGHT someday pay interest, and who are bringing in fees, than have us go elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70be767cf8054746efe00c029e2349f2",
"text": "\"The bottom line is that you are kind of a terrible customer for them. Granted you are far better than one that does not pay his bills, but you are (probably) in the tier right above that. Rewards cards are used to lure the unorganized into out of control interest rates and late payments. These people are Capital One's, and others, best customers. They have traded hundreds of dollars in interest payments for a couple of dollars in rewards. The CC company says: \"\"YUMMY\"\"! You, on the other hand, cut into their \"\"meager\"\" profits from fees collected from your transactions. Why should they help you make more money? Why should they further cut into your profits? Response to comment: Given your comment I think the bottom line is a matter of perspective. You seem like a logical, altruistic type person who probably seeks a win-win situation in business dealings. This differs from CC companies they operate to seek one thing: enslavement. BTW the \"\"terrible customer\"\" remark should be taken as a compliment. After you get past the marketing lies you begin to see what reward programs and zero percent financing is all about. How do most people end up with 21%+ interest rates? They started with a zero percent balance loan, and was late for a payment. Reward cards work a bit differently. Studies show that people tend to spend about 17% more when they use a reward card. I've caught myself ordering an extra appetizer or beer and have subsequently stopped using a reward card for things I can make a decision at the time of purchase. For people with tight budgets this leads to debt. My \"\"meager\"\" profits paragraph makes sense when you understand the onerous nature of CC companies. They are not interested in earning 2% on purchases (charge 3% and give back 1%) for basically free money. You rightly see this as what should be a win-win for all parties involved. Thus the meager in quotation marks. CC companies are willing to give back 1% and charge 3% if you then pay 15% or more on your balance. Some may disagree with me on the extracting nature of CC companies, but they are wrong. I like him as an actor, but I don't believe Samuel Jackson's lines.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "efc61f4ca2cbf4747a962aacb18f1111",
"text": "There are two separate cases here that people are not separating. Any card will allow you to pay an amount not exceeding the actually posted charges. Some cards will allow you to pay more than this, some will not. My parents have deliberately overpaid as a means of having a higher credit limit, I've been denied (different card) when trying to do the same thing and the website wouldn't even allow me to pay temporary charges that hadn't yet become real. (A human operator would allow paying those, though.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18127088510ed511e14029a376fff64e",
"text": "A) The Credit Rating Agencies only look at the month-end totals that are on your credit card, as this is all they ever get from the issuing bank. So a higher usage frequency as described would not make any direct difference to your credit rating. B) The issuing bank will know if you use the credit with the higher frequency, but it probably has little effect on your limit. Typically, after two to three month, they reevaluate your credit limit, and it could go up considerably if you never overdrew (and at this time, it could indirectly positively affect your credit rating). You could consider calling the issuing bank after two month and try to explain the history a bit and get them to increase the limit, but that only makes sense if your credit score has recovered. Your business paperwork could go a long way to convince someone, if you do so well now. C) If your credit rating is still bad, you need to find out why. It should have normalized to a medium range with the bad historic issues dropped.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52feda2bfa5b003fa24d3ee131ed0895",
"text": "Because people are going deeper into debt and filing for bankruptcy more often, there is more risk on behalf of the credit company. Therefore, they limit their risk by lower limits and increasing interest. For every person that goes bankrupt, there might be 10 that pay that new higher interest rate, thereby netting a profit even though they lost out completely on the one customer. The recent legislation limited how and under what circumstance rate are adjusted and raised, but not forbidden. As for the fact that these banks took tax money under the idea (we all thought) I see two points of view. We never should have had the credit we did, so they are correcting and you (like me and millions of others) are suffering for their prior mistakes. It is an honest attempt to correct the system for long term stability even if we suffer in the short term. We gave them tax money, they need to not screw us over. In response to the still frozen credit markets I would suggest penalty taxes to companies that do not lend. Penalties to companies that do not modify mortgages. The second you take government money is the last second a you are entitled to a profit of anything. Furthermore, we the people bought you and we the people get to decide your salary. The bottom line is there is truth in both statements. Things are totally screwed up right now because we ALL made mistakes in the past trying to get a bigger profit or own a bigger house. There are those among us who didn't make a mistake, and those among us who made nothing but mistakes. As a society, we have to pay the piper either way. The best thing you can do now is pay down your debts, live simply and spend your money wisely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "351b8a1e9fb4e0c37cd26d326b02f834",
"text": "One reason why they limit it is to protect you. If I hack your account, I get your entire financial history. I can see a copy of every check you ever wrote. I can see the account number with every doctor, utility, and credit card. I can also see the account information on the back of those checks for all your relatives who you sent $10 for their birthday. I can use the information in those accounts to see where you used to live, this allows me to spoof you when applying for new credit. If they ask if I ever lived on Main street in Anytown USA. I can confidently say yes. If I only let you download a window of time, the responsibility is on you to protect that data that is before the window. They protect it in file isolated from the internet, and finally only in archive locations. Some of the information doesn't exists in electronic form. Data from the 1990's and earlier may not exist in the form you want. They have been expanding the windows over time. I can see/download a pdf of my monthly statement going back 7 years. Of course that data can't go directly into quicken. Some places do let you get a file that goes back farther, but they charge you for it, and it can only be done by them sending you the file. That prevents you from downloading your entire history everyday. That times 70 Million customers would overwhelm their server and other infrastructure. Regarding the amount of data:",
"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": "3d546b6e4bd4a4a825ca9009cdc7b12a",
"text": "Another reason is that the amount of unused credit you have is a positive factor on your credit score. It's generally easier to open several different accounts for $X dollars each with different banks than to get your current bank to raise your limit severalfold in a single go. Your current bank has to worry about why you suddenly are asking for a large additional amount of credit; while other banks will be willing to offer you smaller amounts of credit in the hope that you transfer your business from your current bank to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01264d3bf1b37ab9fb671b8d57b01293",
"text": "I've read multiple times that the way to rebuild the credit score is to get a credit card and then have some minor charges on it every month and have them paid in full every month. Old negative events age and this disciplined activity rebuild the score to some not to horrible levels. Now it's true that it's hard to get reasonably good credit cards when your credit score is poor. Yet it's not necessary to have a good credit card for this case - such things as large credit limit are not needed. All that's needed is a long grace period so that there's no interest between the moment a charge is done and a moment the bill is paid in full at the end of the month. Yes, the card may have rather high interest and rather low credit limit, but it doesn't really matter. I've read once on MSN Money that people are offered credit even while they're in the middle of bankruptcy, so it's not impossible to get a credit card in the described situation. Goes without saying that a lot of discipline will be needed to have all this implemented.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07b529c7d2395c26971e103a1982d34f",
"text": "While I agree with keshlam@ that the gym had no reason (or right) to ask for your SSN, giving false SSN to obtain credit or services (including gym membership) may be considered a crime. While courts disagree on whether you can be charged with identity theft in this scenario, you may very well be charged with fraud, and if State lines are crossed (which in case of store cards is likely the case) - it would be a Federal felony charge. Other than criminal persecution, obviously not paying your debt will affect your credit report. Since you provided false identity information, the negative report may not be matched to you right away, but it may eventually. In the case the lender discovers later that you materially misrepresented information on your mortgage application - they may call on your loan and either demand repayment in full at once or foreclose on you. Also, material misrepresentation of facts on loan application is also a criminal fraud. Again, if State lines are crossed (which in most cases, with mortgages they are), it becomes a Federal wire fraud case. On mortgage application you're required to disclose your debts, and that includes lines of credits (store cards and credit cards are the same thing) and unpaid debts (like your gym membership, if its in collection).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3c326b2ea3f1b5e375bbd90af5d2132",
"text": "\"I don't know of a situation where rejecting a raise would make sense. Often, one can be in a phaseout of some benefit, so that even though you're in a certain tax bracket, the impact of the next $100 is greater than the bracket rate alone. Taxation of social security benefits is one such anomaly. It can be high, but never over 100%. Update - The Affordable Care Act contains such an anomaly - go to the Kaiser Foundation site, and see the benefit a family of three might receive. A credit for up to $4631 toward their health care insurance cost. But, increase the income to above $78120 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and the benefit drops to zero. The fact that the next dollar of income will cost you $4631 in the lost credit is an example of a step-function in the tax code. I'd still not turn down the raise, but I'd ask that it be deposited to my 401(k). And when reconciling my taxes each April, I'd use an IRA in case I still went over a bit. Consider, it's April, and your MAGI is $80,120. Even if you don't have to cash to deposit to the IRA, you borrow it, from a 24% credit card if need be. Because the $2000 IRA will trigger not just $300 less Federal tax, but a $4631 health care credit. Note - the above example will apply to a limited, specific group who are funding their own health care expense and paying above a certain percent of income. It's not a criticism of ACA, just a mathematical observation appropriate to this question. For those in this situation, a close look at their projected MAGI is in order. Another example - the deduction for college tuition and fees. This is another \"\"step function.\"\" Go a dollar over the threshold, $130K joint, and the deduction drops from $4000 to $2000. You can claim that a $2000 deduction is a difference of 'only' $500 in tax due, but the result is a quick spike in the marginal rate. For those right at this number, it would be worth it to increase their 401(k) deduction to get back under this limit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4144fdafb5464a6c4ad0a0a2b5c90ec5",
"text": "Why do you want to improve your credit score? Did you want to buy something? If not, I don't see the point in improving it. If you want to buy something, you can work towards long-term solutions like others have mentioned. In the short term, you can dispute the accuracy of all the negative line items in your report. This will give you a short boost in your credit report while the line items are being investigated as they will be taken off your credit report in the mean time. If you're looking to get a car or mortgage a home, you could time your dispute with purchasing the high dollar assets. This is a trick that does work, but you have to make your move while your credit score is the best it can be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffd92d990a6b96092871ac822eef4a57",
"text": "\"This is not a normal occurrence, and you have every right to be annoyed, but the technical way it usually happens goes like this: What can happen is when the merchant incorrectly completes the transaction without referencing the pre-authorization transaction. The bank effectively doesn't \"\"know\"\" this is the same transaction, so they process it the same way they process any other purchase, and it has no effect on the pre-authorization and related held/pending transaction. As far as the bank knows, you purchased a second set of blinds in the store for $200 and are still waiting on the first order to come in, they have no idea the store screwed up. The reason this is possible is the purpose of the pre-auth in the first place is that it is a contractual agreement between the bank (credit card) and the merchant that the funds are available, will be available except under rare special circumstances, and thus they can go ahead and process the order. This lets the merchant be secure in the knowledge that they can collect their payment, but you aren't paying interest or monthly payments on something you haven't even gotten yet! This system works reasonably well for everyone - right up until someone screws up and fails to properly release a hold, makes a second transaction instead of properly referencing the first one, or the bank screws up their system and fails to correctly match referenced pre-authorization codes to purchases. The problem is that this should not be a normal occurrence, and the people you are speaking with to try to sort out the issue often do not have the authority or knowledge necessary to properly fix the issue, or its such a hassle for them that they hope you just go away and time fixes the issue on its own. The only sure-fire solution to this is: make sure you have so much extra credit line that this doesn't effect you and you can safely let it time out on its own, or stop doing business with this combination of merchant/payment that creates the problem. Back when my credit limits were being pushed, I would never pay at gas pumps because their hold polices were so weird and unpredictable, and I would only pre-pay inside or with cash to avoid the holds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dcbbcc78bd1561999720f4fd276ad02",
"text": "Yeah I have credit cards now but his credit line got me jumped up from maybe a 200 to a 650 in a few months or a year or so. My bad I figured I posted it in the wrong sub! So if he cancels it, will this cause me to lose points? Considering the credit line is about 20K?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "345ebba66a67476e6b9e1fb4bdd33b3d",
"text": "I had a macys card which only had $75.00 credit limit... I accidently paid over the limit so the card had $100.00 in it. I left it that way for a month.. My credit limit turned into 100.. So I do think its possible to increase your credit limit that way.. I've tried many times requesting for a credit limit increase.. I was denied many times.. The only thing I have is to add money but the tricky thing is that you'll have to add money and spend the whole amount and then pay it off at once for the credit limit to stick. But since you have great credit assuming because your limit is 1000, you should request for an increase of your credit limit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cfb64bbf0a388ad9bda6cea06cdc2ce",
"text": "\"There's many concrete answers, but there's something circular about your question. The only thing I can think of is that phone service providers ask for credit report when you want to start a new account but I am sure that could be worked around if you just put down a cash deposit in some cases. So now the situation is flipped - you are relying on your phone company's credit! Who is to say they don't just walk away from their end of the deal now that you have paid in full? The amount of credit in this situation is conserved. You just have to eat the risk and rely on their credit, because you have no credit. It doesn't matter how much money you have - $10 or $10000 can be extorted out of you equally well if you must always pay for future goods up front. You also can't use that money month-by-month now, even in low-risk investments. Although, they will do exactly that and keep the interest. And I challenge your assumption that you will never default. You are not a seraphic being. You live on planet earth. Ever had to pay $125,000 for a chemo treatment because you got a rare form of cancer? Well, you won't be able to default on your phone plan and pay for your drug (or food, if you bankrupt yourself on the drug) because your money is already gone. I know you asked a simpler question but I can't write a good answer without pointing out that \"\"no default\"\" is a bad model, it's like doing math without a zero element. By the way, this is realistic. It applies to renting in, say, New York City. It's better to be a tenant with credit who can withhold rent in issue of neglected maintenance or gross unfair treatment, than a tenant who has already paid full rent and has left the landlord with little market incentive to do their part.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a82a58202ec394a50a1b5aa8ce2f7f3",
"text": "This is normal with the dealer's financing. To add more details to littleadv's answer, what happens is when you get the financing through the dealer, at first, they will try to do the loan on your behalf with local banks in your area. This is why you see several hard inquiries; one from each back. If none of these banks wants to take the loan, then dealer's financing entity will take the loan. This was my exact experience with Hyundai. In addition, don't get surprise if you start receiving letters saying that your loan was rejected. The dealer will send the loan requests simultaneously, and some of the banks might deny the loan. This also happened to me, and I have been owning my car for around a year. Still, make sure that the letters matches with the credit inquiries.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ac79f20cff9c2f60ecbe283de3d824eb
|
Pay or not pay charged-off accounts for mortgage qualification
|
[
{
"docid": "9d44726d840266dfc13a6eef5828b1e4",
"text": "\"Your post has some assumptions that are not, or may not be true. For one the assumption is that you have to wait 7 years after you settle your debts to buy a home. That is not the case. For some people (me included) settling an charged off debt was part of my mortgage application process. It was a small debt that a doctor's office claimed I owed, but I didn't. The mortgage company told me, settling the debt was \"\"the cost of doing business\"\". Settling your debts can be looked as favorable. Option 1, in my opinion is akin to stealing. You borrowed the money and you are seeking to game the system by not paying your debts. Would you want someone to do that to you? IIRC the debt can be sold to another company, and the time period is refreshed and can stay on your credit report for beyond the 7 years. I could be wrong, but I feel like there is a way for potential lenders to see unresolved accounts well beyond specified time periods. After all, the lenders are the credit reporting agencies customers and they seek to provide the most accurate view of a potential lender. With 20K of unresolved CC debt they should point that out to their customers. Option 2: Do you have 20K? I'd still seek to settle, you do not have to wait 7 years. Your home may not appreciate in 2 years. In my own case my home has appricated very little in the 11 years that I have owned it. Many people have learned the hard way that homes do not necessarily increase in value. It is very possible that you may have a net loss in equity in two years. Repairs or improvements can evaporate the small amount of equity that is achieved over two years with a 30 year mortgage. I would hope that you pause a bit at the fact that you defaulted on 20K in debt. That is a lot of money. Although it is a lot, it is a small amount in comparison to the cost and maintenance of a home. Are you prepared to handle such a responsibility? What has changed in your personality since the 20K default? The tone of your posts suggests you are headed for the same sort of calamity. This is far more than a numbers game it is behavioral.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7272a66bfcb146100e122085b2ec6a24",
"text": "From what I have heard on Clark Howard if you pay your balance off before the statement's closing date it will help your utilization score. He has had callers confirm this but I don't have first hand knowledge for this to be true. Also this will take two months to make the difference. So it will be boarder line if you will get the benefit in time. Sign up for credit karma if you like. You can get suggestions on how to help your score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8500623441de74685beaa0c4c6b26782",
"text": "Yes, for a credit card, payments in excess of the minimum will go toward principal. This is not always the case with a mortgage, where prepayments of extra principal need to be explicitly stated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b27fe4787eb6e07ed71131bc7357766",
"text": "\"There are other good answers to the general point that the essence of what you're describing exists already, but I'd like to point out a separate flaw in your logic: Why add more complications so that \"\"should I call this principal or interest\"\" actually makes a difference? Why's the point (incentive) for this? The incentive is that using excess payments to credit payments due in the future rather than applying it to outstanding principal is more lucrative for the lender. Since it's more lucrative and there's no law against it most (all) lenders use it as the default setting.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ade1a70a1ee0761e9bad174726ff779e",
"text": "\"I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? It's to the banks advantage to reduce the payments in that situation. If they were willing to loan you money previously, they should still be willing. If they keep the payments the same, then you'll pay off the loan faster. Just playing with a spreadsheet, paying off a third of the mortgage amount would eliminate the back half of the payments or reduces payments by around two fifths (leaving off any escrow or insurance). If you can afford the payments, I'd lean towards leaving them at the current level and paying off the loan early. But you know your circumstances better than we do. If you are underfunded elsewhere, shore things up. Fully fund your 401k and IRA. Fill out your emergency fund. Buy that new appliance that you don't quite need yet but will soon. If you are paying PMI, you should reduce the principal down to the point where you no longer have to do so. That's usually more than 20% equity (or less than an 80% loan). There is an argument for investing the remainder in securities (stocks and bonds). If you itemize, you can deduct the interest on your mortgage. And then you can deduct other things, like local and state taxes. If you're getting a higher return from securities than you'd pay on the mortgage, it can be a good investment. Five or ten years from now, when your interest drops closer to the itemization threshold, you can cash out and pay off more of the mortgage than you could now. The problem is that this might not be the best time for that. The Buffett Indicator is currently higher than it was before the 2007-9 market crash. That suggests that stocks aren't the best place for a medium term investment right now. I'd pay down the mortgage. You know the return on that. No matter what happens with the market, it will save you on interest. I'd keep the payments where they are now unless they are straining your budget unduly. Pay off your thirty year mortgage in fifteen years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4b75a63bf6184e218d2b55c6d84ddc6",
"text": "Certainly there are people who do pay off their homes. Others do not. It's a question of risk tolerance and preference. Some considerations relevant to this question: Taxes - Interest on a mortgage is tax deductible. Particularly for high earners, this is a significant incentive to maintain a mortgage balance and place extra money in the market instead. Liquidity - If you lose your job, you can sell stocks to pay the mortgage. But if you have made principle payments on your mortgage but still owe some outstanding balance, you are still required to make monthly payments without any source of income. Rates - In recent years it is been common to get a mortgage for 3.2% to 3.5%. The difference between those rates and 9% rate of return for the market is substantial. There are other considerations but the answer in the end is that for many people the risk / reward calculus says the ~5% difference in rate of return is worth the potential risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47fb00c8ef165134dc0c437bddc54ebf",
"text": "Ditto to Victor. The simple rule is: Pay the minimums on all so you don't get any late fees, etc, then pay off the highest interest rate loan first. A couple of special cases do come to mind: If one or more of these are credit cards, then, here in the U.S. at least, credit cards charge you interest on the average daily balance, unless you pay off the balance entirely, in which case you pay zero interest. So for example say you had two credit cards, both with 1% per month interest, with debt of $2000 and $1000. You have $1500 available. Ignoring minimum payments for the moment, if you put that $1500 against the larger balance, you would still pay interest on the full amount for the current month, or $30. But if you paid off the smaller and put the difference against the larger, then your interest for the current month would be only $15. (Either way, your interest for NEXT month would be the same -- 1% of the $1500 remaining balance or $15 -- assuming you couldn't pay off the other card.) If one or more of the loans are mortgage loans on which you are paying mortgage insurance, then when you get the balance below a certain point -- usually 80% of the original loan amount -- you no longer have to pay mortgage insurance premiums. Thus the amount you are paying on such premiums needs to be factored into the calculation. There may be other special cases. Those are the ones that I've run into.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e18a6ca79cdbe05daed214257d18350c",
"text": "\"This is somewhat unbelievable. I mean if you had a business of collecting debts, wouldn't you want to collect said debts? Rather than attempting to browbeat people with these delinquent debts into paying, you have someone volunteering to pay. Would you want to service that client? This would not happen in just about any other industry, but such is the lunacy of debt collecting. The big question is why do you need this cleared off your credit? If it is just for a credit score, it probably is not as important as your more recent entries. I would just wait it out, until 7 years has passed, and you can then write the reporting agencies to remove it from your credit. If you are attempting to buy a home or similarly large purpose and the mortgage company is insisting that you deal with this, then I would do the following: Write the company to address the issue. This has to be certified/return receipt requested. If they respond, pay it and insist that it be marked as paid in full on your credit. I would do this with a money order or cashiers check. Done. Dispute the charge with the credit reporting agencies, providing the documentation of no response. This should remove the item from your credit. Provide this documentation to the mortgage broker. This should remove any hangup they might have. Optional: Sue the company in small claims court. This will take a bit of time and money, but it should yield a profit. There was a post on here a few days ago about how to do this. Make part of any settlement to have your name cleared of the debt. It is counterproductive to fall into the trap of the pursuit of a perfect credit score. A person with a 750 often receives the same rate options as a person with 850. Also your relationship with a particular lender could trump your credit score. Currently I am \"\"enjoying\"\" the highest credit score of my life, over 820. Do you know how I did it? I got out of debt (including paying off the mortgage) and I have no intentions of ever going into debt for anything. So why does it matter? It is a bit ridiculous.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1bea3d52dd8f05cf5b4cfdeeec0e3641",
"text": "\"We payed off our Mortgage early...at first in small extra payments to principal, and finally a lump sum. Each extra payment to principal reduced the balance, and reduced every payment going forward. I have, somewhere, an excel spreadsheet where I tracked this... - =CUMIPMT((interestRate/12),term,pymtNumber,balance,balance,0) computed the interest payment due - =currentPrincipal + CUMIPRINTresultAbove computed the monthly principal payment Occasionally I would update the month-ending Principal balance against what the mortgage company told me. It was usually off by a little. My mortgage company required me to specifically contact them for a payoff amount before I wrote the final check. I've never heard of a mortgage where prepayment of all expected interest following the original schedule is required. I would guess it is against federal (US) law. Lets think about that for a moment... out of \"\"interest\"\", I recently computed that for our 30 year loan at 6-5/8% on about 145, we payed a total of 106000 in interest. That include a refi to 4-7/8 10-years in to a 15-year loan, and paying it off 20 years after the original loan was granted. As far as not paying all the theoretical interest due... - If they get a fixed dollar amount of service interest back, there's no incentive to me to pay on-time. I owe the same amount if I pay it today or if I pay it 6 months late, after I gambled the mortgage money and finally won. (yea, I know they could write the mortgage to penalize me for paying late, but I'm ignoring that) - if you were requried to pay off all the interest that might accrue, how could you ever sell your home, or refinance, for that matter? When I refi'd, the new holder payed the old holder 98,000. If the original holder had required prepayment of all the interest that would be accrued to the original schedule, the new mortgage would've been 200k. It would just never be a good deal to buy a home if mortgages worked under that term. I have had a car loan that worked differently -- they pre-computed the total interest due and then divided it over the term of the loan equally. I could pay off early and they stopped collecting interest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c3c640216beeb00bd08cb60a0865847",
"text": "It will not hurt your score to pay off your debt. It will allow your score to start healing as you plug the holes in your report. What is CRUCIAL is how you pay off the debt. Make sure you get, in writing, that paying $X amount will fully satisfy the debt and will close the matter as in Pay-To-Delete. If you try to do a settlement, this is very important. Also, the moral brigade will not like my answer, but if you are close to seven years out on your debts, you might as well not pay them since they will fall off of your report after 7 years. If you pay any part of the debt however, it will often reset the clock on those 7 years, so tread carefully.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc25e96f48d7cae8fce97f43e91fc0cf",
"text": "Your son is completely free to pay off your mortgage if he wants. However in most jurisdictions it counts as a gift to you, and will be subject to gift tax, or its equivalent. This is why the bank doesn't want to receive payments directly from your son, so that they are not caught up in the reporting of this. If you are in the US, this is a good page about Gift Tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04b413cc5f63dcc003d781aea221c5de",
"text": "NO, you pay off the Highest interest charging accounts first. The zero interest loan should be the Last one you pay off. Basically payoff your student loan and put the extra money to the car loan",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "500c95eb8f7bbe0ace7c49351a3a4d1d",
"text": "\"When I left the UK four years ago, free banking is still an option and I'm pretty sure it still is. Therefore, you have chosen to have a bank account with a 5.00/month charge. In return for this charge, you will be eligible to receive certain benefits. For example; reduced borrowing costs, discounted mortgage rates, free overdraft on small amounts, \"\"rewards\"\" for paying household bills by direct debit, and things of this sort. Amongst these benefits may be preferential savings rates. However, from HMRC's point of view it will be the extra perks you are paying for with your monthly charge. You have chosen to pay for the account and HMRC is not interested in how you choose to spend your money, only in the money you earn. While I agree with you that it does have an element of unfairness, the problem is how would you divide the cost amongst the various benefits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9331a3c65771f1e4731b192eb5ed521",
"text": "Pay the the smallest balance first. The sooner you pay that off, the sooner you can pay more on the mortgage.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0a4c837a7d75663a22b10e332f72e1bd
|
Filing Taxes for Two Separate Jobs Being Worked at the Same Time?
|
[
{
"docid": "eebfd26667517727702aaec038ea12a4",
"text": "\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \"\"interview\"\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7631499e373cae1204e353f7b36277e8",
"text": "Welcome to the wonderful but oft confusing world of self-employment. Your regular job will withhold income for you and give you a W2, which tells you and the government how much is withheld. At the end of the year uber will give you and the government a 1099-misc, which will tell you how much they paid you, but nothing will be withheld, which means you will owe the government some taxes. When it comes to taxes, you will file a 1040 (the big one, not a 1040EZ nor 1040A). In addition you will file a schedule C (self-employed income), where you will report the gross paid to you, deduct your expenses, and come up with your profit, which will be taxable. That profit goes into a line in the 1040. You need to file schedule SE. This says how much self-employment tax you will pay on your 1099 income, and it will be more than you expect. Self employment tax is SS/Medicare. There's a line for this on the 1040 as well. You can also deduct half of your self-employment tax on the 1040, there's a line for it. Now, you can pay quarterly taxes on your 1099 income by filing 1040-ES. That avoids a penalty (which usually isn't that large) for not withholding enough. As an alternative, you can have your regular W2 job withhold extra. As long as you don't owe a bunch at tax time, you won't be a fined. When you are self-employed your taxes aren't as simple. Sorry. You can either spend some time becoming an expert by studying the instructions for the 1040, pay for the expensive version of tax programs, or hire someone to do it for you. Self-employed taxes are painful, but take advantage of the upsides as well. You can start a solo 401(k) or SEP IRA, for example. Make sure you are careful to deduct every relevant business expense and keep good records in case you get audited.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9fd632a34c4689f4fcdbfb85bb386537",
"text": "You have to file and issue each one of them a 1099 if you are paying them $600 or more for the year. Because you need to issue a 1099 to them (so they can file their own taxes), I don't think there's a way that you could just combine all of them. Additionally, you may want to make sure that you are properly classifying these people as contractors in case they should be employees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9724203d4f5b5c13be3e4ffa92717c5",
"text": "I would think that the real teeth here would be the IRS, should they look into it (and they should). Splitting paychecks to avoid overtime also reduces taxes paid, which is large scale tax fraud, which generally leads to a sentence in gently-caress-my-bum-Federal-Penitentiary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "563440e7c3bd9c4100cc7605236340c8",
"text": "\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \"\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\"\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \"\"make you whole\"\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \"\"Contract-to-Hire\"\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c414ddf19d92a996247a16664983c33f",
"text": "With a limited company, you'll have to pay yourself a salary through PAYE. With income from your other job taking you over the higher-rate threshold, you should inform HMRC of this and get a tax code of DO for the second job, meaning 40% tax (and also both employer's and employee's National Insurance) will be deducted from the whole amount of the salary. See here. Dividends should be like any other dividend -- you won't pay extra tax when you receive them, but will have to declare them on your tax return and pay the tax later. See the official information here. You'll get a £5,000 tax allowance for dividends, but they'll still count as income for purposes of hitting the higher-rate threshold. I think in practice this means the first £5,000 will be tax-free, and the rest will be taxed at 32.5%. But note that you have to pay yourself at least the minimum wage as salary, not as dividend. I can't see IR35 being an issue. However, I'm not a professional, and this situation is complicated enough to need professional advice. Talk to an accountant or a tax advisor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2226740c96f085d39471c7c914edee3f",
"text": "If you are paid by foreigners then it is quite possible they don't file anything with the IRS. All of this income you are required to report as business income on schedule C. There are opportunities on schedule C to deduct expenses like your health insurance, travel, telephone calls, capital expenses like a new computer, etc... You will be charged both the employees and employers share of social security/medicare, around ~17% or so, and that will be added onto your 1040. You may still need a local business license to do the work locally, and may require a home business permit in some cities. In some places, cities subscribe to data services based on your IRS tax return.... and will find out a year or two later that someone is running an unlicensed business. This could result in a fine, or perhaps just a nice letter from the city attorneys office that it would be a good time to get the right licenses. Generally, tax treaties exist to avoid or limit double taxation. For instance, if you travel to Norway to give a report and are paid during this time, the treaty would explain whether that is taxable in Norway. You can usually get a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries against your US taxes, which helps avoid paying double taxes in the USA. If you were to go live in Norway for more than a year, the first $80,000/year or so is completely wiped off your US income. This does NOT apply if you live in the USA and are paid from Norway. If you have a bank account overseas with more than $10,000 of value in it at any time during the year, you owe the US Government a FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR). This is pretty important, there are some large fines for not doing it. It could occur if you needed an account to get paid in Norway and then send the money here... If the Norwegian company wires the money to you from their account or sends a check in US$, and you don't have a foreign bank account, then this would not apply.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001777fad85611bd1aebbaf3796d70df",
"text": "To clarify that legality of this (for those that question it), this is directly from IRS Publication 926 (2014) (for household employees): If you prefer to pay your employee's social security and Medicare taxes from your own funds, do not withhold them from your employee's wages. The social security and Medicare taxes you pay to cover your employee's share must be included in the employee's wages for income tax purposes. However, they are not counted as social security and Medicare wages or as federal unemployment (FUTA) wages. I am sorry this does not answer your question entirely, but it does verify that you can do this. UPDATE: I have finally found a direct answer to your question! I found it here: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sh/ar01.html Form W-2 and Form W-3 If you file one or more Forms W-2, you must also file Form W-3. You must report both cash and noncash wages in box 1, as well as tips and other compensation. The completed Forms W-2 and W-3 in the example (in these instructions) show how the entries are made. For detailed information on preparing these forms, see the General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3. Employee's portion of taxes paid by employer. If you paid all of your employee's share of social security and Medicare taxes, without deducting the amounts from the employee's pay, the employee's wages are increased by the amount of that tax for income tax withholding purposes. Follow steps 1 through 3 below. (See the example in these instructions.) Enter the amounts you paid on your employee's behalf in boxes 4 and 6 (do not include your share of these taxes). Add the amounts in boxes 3, 4, and 6. (However, if box 5 is greater than box 3, then add the amounts in boxes 4, 5, and 6.) Enter the total in box 1.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90605b0a6f67febcdf781d210077a575",
"text": "I'm not sure I am fully understanding the nuance of your question, but based on your answer in the comments you and your business are not separate legal entities. So your income is the full $70K, there is no distinct business to have income. If you clarify your question to include why you want to know this I might be able to give a more meaningful answer for your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9379f5ad0e097a21cb007559a3207893",
"text": "It looks like you can. Take a look at these articles: http://www.googobits.com/articles/1747-taking-an-itemized-deduction-for-job-expenses.html http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/business-expenses-that-benefit-you.aspx http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/employment.html But of course, go to the source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html#en_US_publink100026912 From publication 529: You can deduct certain expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR). You can claim the amount of expenses that is more than 2% of your adjusted gross income. You figure your deduction on Schedule A by subtracting 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total amount of these expenses. Your adjusted gross income is the amount on Form 1040, line 38, or Form 1040NR, line 36. I hope that helps. Happy deducting!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8422693db687a36bf9cb06ee289c6cec",
"text": "I don't think you need double-entry bookkeeping. To quote Robert Kiyosaki (roughly): Income is when money enters you pocket, and expenses are when money leaves your pocket. Income is an addition; expenses are subtractions. But if you want double-entry accounting, I'm not qualified to answer that. :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a03266c8bf735a7316fe2d58e988bf6",
"text": "Of course not. You had another job for which you earned money. What does the corporation have to do with it? Corporation is a separate entity from your person, and since it was in no way involved in the transaction - there's no justification to funnel money through it. Doing so may pierce the corporate veil and expose you to liability which you created the corporation to shield yourself from. Not to mention the tax evasion, which is the reason you are asking the question to begin with....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "719c0a7c4a90b1bc43da880d1d4a1584",
"text": "There are quite a few questions as to how you are recording your income and expenses. If you are running the bakery as a Sole Proprietor, with all the income and expense in a business account; then things are easy. You just have to pay tax on the profit [as per the standard tax bracket]. If you running it as individual, you are still only liable to pay tax on profit and not turnover, however you need to keep a proper book of accounts showing income and expense. Get a Accountant to do this for you there are some thing your can claim as expense, some you can't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b287fe3e5c18c67590e241a102689ff",
"text": "\"1 - in most cases, the difference between filing joint or married filing single is close to zero. When there is a difference you're better off filing joint. 2 - The way the W4 works is based on how many allowances you claim. Unfortunately, even in the day of computers, it does not allow for a simple \"\"well my deduction are $xxx, don't tax that money.\"\" Each allowance is equal to one exemption, same as you get for being you, same as the wife gets, same as each kid. 3 people X $3800 = $11,400 you are telling the employer to take off the top before calculating your tax. She does this by using Circular E and is able to calculate your tax as you request. If one is in the 15% bracket, one more exemption changes the tax withheld by $570. So if you were going to owe $400 in April, one few exemption will have you overpay $170. i.e. in this 15% bracket, each exemption changes annual withholding by that $570. For most people, running the W4 numbers will get them very close, and only if they are getting back or owing over $500, will they even think of adjusting. 3 - My recently published Last Minute Tax Moves offers a number of interesting ideas to address this. The concept of grouping deductions in odd years is worth noting. 4 - I'm not sure what this means, 2 accounts each worth $5000 should grow at the same rate if invested the same. The time it makes sense to load one person's account first is if they have better matching. You say you are not sure what percent your wife's company matches. You need to change this. For both of your retirement plans you need to know every detail, exact way to maximize matching, expense ratios for the investments you choose, any other fees, etc. Knowledge is power, and all that. In What is an appropriate level of 401k fees or expenses in a typical plan? I go on to preach about how fees can wipe out any tax benefit over time. For any new investor, my first warning is always to understand what you are getting into. If you can't explain it to a friend, you shouldn't be in it. Edit - you first need to understand what choices are within the accounts. The 4% and 6% are in hindsight, right? These are not fixed returns. You should look at the choices and more heavily fund the account with the better selection. Deposit to her account at least to grab the match. As far as the longer term goals, see how the house purchase goes. Life has a way of sending you two kids and forcing you to tighten the budget. You may have other ideas in three years. (I have no P2P lending experience, by the way.) Last - many advise that separate finances are a bad path for a couple. It depends. Jane and I have separate check books, and every paycheck just keep enough to write small checks without worry, most of the money goes to the house account. Whatever works for you is what you should do. We've been happily married for most of the 17 years we've been married.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3cd89c0d64142d65db6089237dac981",
"text": "How do I account for this in the bookkeeping? Here is an example below: This is how you would accurately depict contributions made by an owner for a business. If you would want to remove money from your company, or pay yourself back, this would be called withdrawals. It would be the inverse of the first journal entry with cash on the credit side and withdrawals on the debited side (as it is an expense). You and your business are not the same thing. You are two different entities. This is why you are taxed as two different entities. When you (the owner) make contributions, it is considered to be the cash of the business. From here you will make these expenses against the business and not yourself. Good luck,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56366def285b890e0e187764b2691abf",
"text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87c9d0ed048118e676a8196605eb034b",
"text": "A computer is a special case because the IRS thinks that you might be using it for personal applications. You may need to keep a log, or be able to state that you also have another computer for non-business use. That said, if your schedule C shows a small profit then you don't need to itemize expenses, just state the total.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2ebed0ca7af93b27963c92cb0186999b
|
When will the 2017 US Federal Tax forms be released?
|
[
{
"docid": "e39a1801cbfa777e2fda516c1822da31",
"text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cd95509e847580c275bb372e84f35c71",
"text": "An amended return is required for situations that impact tax owed, or your tax refund. 8606 purpose is to track non-deducted IRA deposits. I'd recommend you gather all your returns to form a paper trail, and when filing your 2016 return, show a proper 8606 as if you'd tracked it all along.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78619ef0b9c3bb98ba6bd974ee9cb02e",
"text": "The purpose of the W-4 form is to allow you to adjust the withholding to meet your tax obligations. If you have outside non-wage income (money from tutoring) you will have to fill out the W-4 to have extra taxes withheld. If you have deductions (kids, mortgages, student loan interest) then you need to adjust the form to have less tax taken out. Now if yo go so far that you owe too much in April, then you can get hit with penalties and a requirement to file your taxes quarterly the next year. Most years I adjust my W-4 to reflect changes to my situation. The idea is to use it to manage your withholding so that you minimize your refund without triggering the penalties. The HR department has advised you well. How to adjust: If you want to decrease withholding (making the refund smaller) add one to the number on the worksheet. In 2014 a change by 1 exemption is equal to a salary adjustment of $3,950. If this was spread over 26 paychecks that would be the same as lowering your salary by ~$152. If you are in the 15% tax bracket that increases your take home pay by ~10 a check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cfbf35be74e0c9661608793f6144579",
"text": "In November '14, I wrote TurboTax 2014 Marketing Mistake Shortly after writing it, a TurboTax agent wrote (on Amazon) to counter the complaints by saying that Deluxe has these forms but did not offer Interview help for them. As Ben notes in his comment on LittleAdv's answer. TurboTax issued an apology letter, which, in my opinion, didn't really set things straight, factually. The forms are there, the interview and data import for stock transactions is gone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51f303003ef67ef10636697db9026a39",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-details-corporate-rate-individual-brackets-deductions-cuts-2017-9) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > &quot;After years of work, we are moving forward with a unified framework that paves the way for bold, transformational tax reform - tax reform that will bring more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks,&quot; Brady said in a statement. > While there is no precise number in the plan, officials have indicated the rate could end up somewhere around 10%. Personal tax changes: A bottom individual tax rate of 12%. The plan specifies three tax brackets, with the lowest rate being 12%. That would represent a slight bump in the bottom bracket, which is now 10%. People currently in the 15% marginal tax bracket would most likely be included here. > &quot;An additional top rate may apply to the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code and does not shift the tax burden from high-income to lower- and middle-income taxpayers,&quot; the plan reads. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72ves8/gop_tax_plan_overview/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~217749 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*: **tax**^#1 **rate**^#2 **plan**^#3 **bracket**^#4 **deduction**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b15d163a90235fed85ed81ab71d178ac",
"text": "\"Do I understand correctly, that we still can file as \"\"Married filing jointly\"\", just add Schedule C and Schedule SE for her? Yes. Business registration information letter she got once registered mentions that her due date for filing tax return is January 31, 2016. Does this prevent us from filing jointly (as far as I understand, I can't file my income before that date)? IRS sends no such letters. IRS also doesn't require any registration. Be careful, you might be a victim to a phishing attack here. In any case, sole proprietor files a regular individual tax return with the regular April 15th deadline. Do I understand correctly that we do not qualify as \"\"Family partnership\"\" (I do not participate in her business in any way other than giving her money for initial tools/materials purchase)? Yes. Do I understand correctly that she did not have to do regular estimated tax payments as business was not expected to generate income this year? You're asking or saying? How would we know what she expected? In any case, you can use your withholding (adjust the W4) to compensate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc4a1b2cc14db985ebf879d270c24d48",
"text": "If you have previously made a contribution during that tax year, you can pull it out and re-add it as often as you need until the deadline for that tax year (April 15 of the following year.) This assumes your gross income isn't high enough to exclude you from eligibility for new contributions--in 2017 the phase-out starts at $118,000 and it is completely phased out at $133,000. Within 60 days of distribution, you can re-contribute up to that amount, but you are only allowed one such 60 day rollover per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26b9ef47787676d25e91b11143e4b3ec",
"text": "The 2012 return was due 4/15/2013 (I'm assuming it didn't fall on a weekend). No late filing penalty if there was no tax due, but he has until 4/15/2016 to file for a refund or to document anything that should have carried forward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20d029ee79bf663c0ef296cbf536a153",
"text": "Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "034e29cd4e755643f5e95ac6daae8337",
"text": "I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccbc20034b475506fd64d7f07b3989cf",
"text": "There are a few methods you can use to estimate your taxes. On the results screen, the app will show you your estimated tax burden, your estimated withholding for the year, and your estimated overpayment/refund or shortfall/tax due. It may also have recommendations for you on how to adjust your W-4 (although, this late in the year, I think it only tells you to come back next year to reevaluate). Your state might also have income tax, and if you are curious about that, you can find the state tax form and estimate your state income tax as well. My guess is that you will be getting a refund this year, as you have only worked half of the year. But that is only a guess.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6c958f80703d863eece8776a95b0b4a",
"text": "I don't like keeping my tax information online. Personally, I buy TaxCut from Amazon for $25-30. I store my info securely on resources under my control. Call me a luddite or a weirdo, but I also file using paper, because I don't see the advantage of paying for the privilege of saving the government time and money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f591963899eb4a32562e19cb18bcc65",
"text": "\"Why do stock markets allow these differences in reporting? The IRS allows businesses to use fiscal calendars that differ from the calendar year. There are a number of reasons a company would choose do this, from preferring to avoid an accounting rush at end of year during holiday season, to aligning with seasonality for their profits (some like to have Q4 as the strongest quarter). Smaller businesses may prefer to keep the extra stress of year end closeout to a traditionally slower time for the business, and some just start their fiscal calendar when the company starts up. You'll notice the report dates are a couple weeks after fiscal quarter end, you would read it as \"\"three months ended...,\"\" so for Agilent, three months ended October 31, 2017, so August, September, October are their Q4 months.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85794d485be3d23157e21a9378a3e00f",
"text": "To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ccd5eb1d0b5465caec02197574beaf4",
"text": "This all comes down to time: You can spend the maximum on taxes and penalties and have your money now. Or you can wait about a decade and not pay a cent in taxes or penalties. Consider (assuming no other us income and 2017 tax brackets which we know will change): Option 1 (1 year): Take all the money next year and pay the taxes and penalty: Option 2 (2 years): Spread it out to barely exceed the 10% bracket: Option 3 (6 years): Spread it out to cover your Standard Deduction each year: Option 4 (6-11 years): Same as Option 3 but via a Roth Conversion Ladder:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a79b608ac23033932aa652e440fc33b",
"text": "Your tax return will be due on April 18th of 2017 for the amounts made in 2016. Based on the figures that you have provided, assuming you are 18, and assuming you are a single taxpayer your total tax will be around $2600.00 ($2611.25 to be exact, without additional credits or deductions to AGI accounted for). The $1,234 in fed. inc. tax that you have already paid is considered to be a prepaid by the government. If at year-end you have provided more than you have made the government will refund you the excess (federal tax return).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
013a7544de8353168b923f827bf4597f
|
Clothing Store Credit Card Account closed but not deleted
|
[
{
"docid": "0eeb5183d169e66dbe014066095e48da",
"text": "You have little chance of getting it deleted. I have the same situation, I closed mine in 2006, and the login still works. Keep the paperwork that you closed it (or print a PDF of the site showing so), and forget about it. If someone is trying to cheat, re-opening it should be the same difficulty as making a new one in your name, so it is not really an additional risk. You could also set the username and password both to a long random string, and not keep them. That soft-forces you to never login again. Note that it will also stay on your credit record for some years (but that's not a bad thing, as it is not in default; in the contrary). The only negative is that if you apply for credit, you might be ashamed of people seeing you ever having had a Sears or Macy's card or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fe5739bea1df0c4b5309e27ba46262f",
"text": "\"They close accounts to render them inoperative. They never delete accounts because they want to retain the data to inform any future decision to give you credit. Also, 99% of the time, if a customer demands their account be deleted, it's because of adverse credit marks and the angry customer wants this accurate information to stop burning their credit report. The answer in this case absolutely must be \"\"heck, no!\"\" That pretty much precludes any valid reason to delete an account. As such, their business systems are not built in a way to make account deletion really possible. Even if you got a job with the company's data-processing department and had direct query/write accesses to the databases, you would find it technically inachievable to surgically remove the specific data (without risking serious damage to the entire DB). And it would still be in transaction logs, so not gone forever. Another reason to keep your account alive is to give you online access to statements. After all, the IRS can audit you 5 years after the fact, so it's real nice to be able to go back that far. Most places the statue of limitations is 6-7 years, so again, defending yourself in a lawsuit, here's raw data from an independent third party that you couldn't have faked. Strictly from a customer service POV, that means you can self-serve on requests like that, instead of having to involve expensive staff time. I totally get the annoyance of having yet another login/password you don't want to have flapping out there in the breeze potentially exposed to a cracker... but given that the account is closed, it's probably not going to cause you much trouble. If anything, change the password to one outside your normal choices, perhaps even one you don't know (retain). As long as you retain the email you have tied to the account, you can always reset the password on the off chance you ever need to get back in. Speaking of that, don't rely on your ISP's ([email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected]), get a Gmail account. I have a dedicated gmail account just for stuff like that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43e888025ed583febf021612ceb59427",
"text": "If it is closed, you should be able to trust that it is closed permanently. What you still have is the online account. Imagine this would be removed and then the account would be re-activated? That should not happen, but the way you see it, you must be afraid of that as well. What I mean to say: See these two things as completely separate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7a54ca9b45f248ad3c03b5eb173e2a2",
"text": "There are three parties involved here: there's the store that issued you the card, then they have some bank that's actually handling the account, and there is some network (VISA, MasterCard, etc.) that the transactions go through. So one avenue to consider is seeing whether all three are aware of you canceling the card.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c6b6c0b21e83c57a3b62918af7f3f1bf",
"text": "\"* Don't underestimate the power of facial recognition wizardry. * No, you don't have to show ID to activate the cards. But keep in mind that they know which cards were activated. There is a paper trail. I'm sure Amex, Visa, MC would happily deactivate the cards for them. Target just has to report that the cards were activated using fraud/theft. * If you took advantage of this \"\"deal\"\" your best bet is to get the prepaid credit cards and spend the money asap at another store (walmart) before they are deactivated. * If indeed this legally is considered fraud, and they go after you for it, you could end up in a giant heap of trouble as many laws have been broken. And, if you use any of the \"\"fraudulent\"\" CC's to make online purchases from a company in another state you could face even more federal charges.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8630f5c40a3b7606a87642027ce64970",
"text": "In your specific case, I would leave them open unless you have a specific reason for wanting to close them - particularly, unless you feel closing them is necessary for you to not misuse them. The impact on the credit score is not why I say this, though. Much more important are the two competing real factors: My suggestion would be to take the cards and put them in your file cabinet, or whatever would cause you to not use them. In fact, you could even cut them up but not close the accounts - I had an account open that I didn't possess a physical card for several years for and didn't use at all, and it stayed open (though it's not guaranteed they'll keep it open for you if you never use it). In an emergency you could then ask them to send you a new copy of the card very easily. But, keep them, just in case you need them. Once you have paid off your balances on your balance-carrying cards, then you should consider closing some of them. Keep enough to be able to live for ~4-6 months (a similar amount to the ideal rainy day fund in savings, basically) and then close others, particularly if you can do so in a way that keeps your average account age reasonably stable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df92b37b680f3e6b31e7f3a3039562c0",
"text": "You also might want to see what sort of documentation the credit card company has. Companies can get pretty lazy sometimes about recordkeeping; there have been cases where banks tried to foreclose on a property but weren't able to produce documents establishing the mortgage. With your father dead, is there anything other than the credit card company's word that the debt is valid?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "964d07be2a94d7b563c58ec7b7db7184",
"text": "I closed an account with them for an unrelated reason (down payment brought account below minimum and I didn't want to switch types of accounts or pay a fee) and it was super easy. I was surprised at how quick the whole process was. That said, I didn't have a brokerage or even any CDs - just checking and savings and my automatic payments were tied to other bank acccounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35eb4630e4d5a9c221eae7a051c04be1",
"text": "\"I don't know why you shut it down from a C&D letter. If anything you should have seen it as them asking you to remove his name and any trademarks from your site. They don't own \"\"fuck you\"\" being printed on clothes. Sounds like you pulled the trigger too quick. Bet there was plenty of money to still be made with that site. Maybe someone more resilient will pick up the torch.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66b35acf56e4b858179a6a2252a75163",
"text": "\"I was I a similar position as you, and sometimes credit bureaus might be difficult to deal with, especially when high amounts of money are involved. To make the long story short, someone opened a store credit card under my name and made a charge of around 3k. After reporting this to the bureaus, they did not want to remove the account from my credit report citing that the claim was \"\"frivolous\"\". After filing a police report, the police officer gave me the phone number for the fraud department of this store credit card, and after they investigated, they removed the account from my credit. I would suggest to do the following: Communicating with Creditors and Debt Collectors You have the right to: Stop creditors and debt collectors from reporting fraudulent accounts. After you give them a copy of a valid identity theft report, they may not report fraudulent accounts to the credit reporting companies. Get copies of documents related to the theft of your identity, like transaction records or applications for new accounts. Write to the company that has the documents, and include a copy of your identity theft report. You also can tell the company to give the documents to a specific law enforcement agency. Stop a debt collector from contacting you. In most cases, debt collectors must stop contacting you after you send them a letter telling them to stop. Get written information from a debt collector about a debt, including the name of the creditor and the amount you supposedly owe. If a debt collector contacts you about a debt, request this information in writing. I know that you said that the main problem was that your credit account was combined with another. But there might be a chance that identity theft was involved. If this is the case, and you can prove it, then you might have access to more tools to help you. For example, you can file a report with the FTC, and along with a police report, this can be a powerful tool in stopping these charges. Feel free to go to the identitytheft.gov website for more information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce8df3b5edca7c3e7cf625537995bd2f",
"text": "Credit card companies are businesses. Businesses will make any decision that makes them money. So does it make them money to cancel your account? It's a simple cost-benefit analysis: you having an account with them will probably give them some benefit for very little cost to them. The only real cost associated with an open account is someone who uses the card but doesn't pay, but they're pretty sure you won't be doing that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9ad3bad94c76aa6ab2e013dcbfa0c3e",
"text": "Close the account. The age doesn't outweigh the fact that you have to pay for the card. It would be one thing if the credit line was a couple thousand but showing the credit bureaus that you are staying away from the $425.00 doesn't really make them think you are any more trustworthy with your available credit. Utilization matters when you are staying away from much larger chunks of your available credit (across all cards).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7bd00d1f83db36a4c2a96aa335a7a9c",
"text": "\"Thanks for the reply man. Yeah it literally says \"\"closed\"\" next to the accou t name. But we finally got ahold of someone, I guess they close your account whenever you have $0 in it and the account should open again 1-2 business days after the direct deposit tries to go into her account. At least that's what the lady said. She hates this bank but we live in a small town and there's just not many options in terms of banking here. Thanks for the help though man I appreciate it!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e39f2aa66c02a22a9eb53c52ff636bd",
"text": "A credit balance can happen any time you have a store return, but paid the bill in full. It's no big deal. Why not just charge the next gas purchase or small grocery store purchase, to cycle it through? Yes - unused cards can get canceled by the bank, and that can hurt your credit score. In the US anyway. I'm guessing it's the same system or similar in Canada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c9c75c629be6d5071b24dbc148034f2",
"text": "Please realize that your issuer can close the account for any number of reasons. Inactivity is one, as having a credit line open costs them money and if you never charge anything, the company doesn't get any transaction fees from vendors nor does the company get to charge you any interest. An occasional charge is likely to keep your card from being closed automatically, but it is not a guarantee. Another reason they may close the account is that you have other bad marks show up on your credit score, or their criteria for offering you the card change so you no longer match their target demographic. I have a credit card issued by my credit union that I have not used for a couple of years. They will not close the card account because my other accounts are still very profitable for them. If I were not an otherwise profitable customer, I wouldn't be surprised if they closed my credit card account. If you are serious about keeping the account open, you should probably have more than a trivial amount of usage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9602e16151bf709cfb818f3eed2690dc",
"text": "I used square in the past for personal yard sale and they did not transfer balance to my bank acct because they told me it was against their policy and I had to have a business license that they could either refund the credit cards i process or keep the money. So they kept it I never got it back. I don't recommend anybody to use square.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc28dfa716f66d5aff573a4d995cbf1a",
"text": "\"Executive summary: It sounds like the merchant just did an authorization then cancelled that authorization when you cancelled the order, so there was never an actual charge so you'll never see an actual refund and there's no money to \"\"claim\"\". More detail: From your second paragraph, it sounds like they just did an authorization but never posted the transaction. A credit card authorization is basically the merchant asking your credit card company \"\"Does sandi have enough credit to pay this amount and if so please reserve that amount for a bit.\"\" The authorization will decrease the total credit you have available on the card, but it's not actually a charge, so if your billing cycle ends, it won't show up on your statement. Depending on which company issued your credit card, you may be able to see the authorization online, usually labelled something like \"\"Pending transactions\"\". Even if your credit card company doesn't show pending transactions, you'll see a decrease in your available credit, however you shouldn't see an increase in your balance. The next step, and the only way the original merchant gets paid, is for the merchant to actually post a transaction to your card. Then it becomes a real charge that will show up on your next credit card statement and you'll be expected to pay it (unless you dispute the charge, but that's a different issue). If the charge is for the same amount as the authorization, the authorization will go away (it's now been converted to an actual charge). If the amounts are different, or the merchant never posts a transaction, the authorization will be removed by your credit card company automatically after a certain amount of time. So it sounds like you placed the order, the merchant did an authorization to make sure you could pay for it and to reserve the money, but then you cancelled the order before the merchant could post the transaction, so you were never really charged for it. The merchant then cancelled the authorization (going by the start of your third paragraph). So there was never an actual transaction posted, you were never charged, and you never really owed any money. Your available credit went down for a bit, but now should be restored to what it was before you placed the order. You'll never see an actual refund reflected on your credit card statement because there was no actual transaction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18e1af1027d619f2518b7ce53d45abf1",
"text": "Check with your bank, usually a statement is either at the same day of month (e.g.: every 15th of the month), or every 30 days (e.g: March 15th, April 14th, May 14th, so forth). From my experience, most credit cards use the same day of month strategy. Keep in mind that if the day is not a business day (e.g.: weekend), the statement is closed either the previous or the next business day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a03156df5f0b04b4961d56ac075f92a1",
"text": "I think you are overcomplicating the scenario by assuming a benefit that doesn't exist. Assume an employee earns 50k, before considering the MSP. The corporation wants to cover the MSP. They have two options: increase the salary to $50,900, or keep the salary the same and pay for the MSP directly. Both options increase the employee's taxable income by $900. Both options decrease the corporation's income by $900. Net tax for each is unchanged. *Note - I couldn't find any specific reference to the MSP in income tax documentation on either BC Finance's or CRA's website. I am assuming that it is treated as a regular cash benefit, though I am not 100% convinced this is the case. If I am wrong in this please provide a comment below.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fb214ce803a5eaadadd2c0f1ba191858
|
Cashing a cheque on behalf of someone else
|
[
{
"docid": "91c1e5a7cf791b995eb94817024b8a20",
"text": "\"It's possible to cash cheques by post. When I did this, it involved filling out a \"\"paying-in slip\"\" (I had a book of these provided by the bank) and posting the cheque together with the slip to an address provided by the bank. You could also bring the paying-in slip and the cheque to a branch and deposit them there, and it wasn't necessary that you were the account holder, just that the details on the slip matched the account you were paying into. I Googled \"\"paying-in slip\"\" and found the instructions for HSBC as an example: Paying-In Slips. It explicitly mentions that you don't need to be the account holder to do this, and moreover there are even blank slips in the branch, which you just need to fill in with the correct account details. I think the procedure is much the same for other banks, but presumably you could check the relevant bank's website for specific guidance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8802d77ad261cc781967b521c631be38",
"text": "\"If the cheque is crossed (as almost all are these days), it can only be paid into an account in the name of the person it was written out to: it cannot be paid into another's account, nor can it be \"\"cashed\"\"1 – see the rules on \"\"Crossed\"\" cheques. Note: that while the recipient of the cheque cannot (legally) alter this state of afairs, the writer of a cheque that was printed pre-crossed can – at least technically – cancel the crossing (see above link). Probably the best the OP can do is pay in the cheque on the friend's behalf (as described in Ben Millwood's answer) and then either lend the friend some money until they are mobile and can get some cash to repay the OP (or have the friend write one of their own cheques which the OP can pay into their bank account). 1 As mentioned in the last section of the rules on crossed cheques, the only exception is that designated \"\"Cheque cashing shops\"\" have special arrangements to deposit cheques which they have cashed (after deducting a fee). However, they would (should?) require proof of identity (of the original payee) and so are unlikely to be of any help (and probably not worth the cost for £35). Having said that, I've never used one, so have no idea how strict they are in practice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50f6d3b54844133f771525f6a664b3b",
"text": "\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e80c85c54bf5110be10450e4d57c23db",
"text": "\"If the cheque is not crossed, then your friend can write \"\"payable to [your name]\"\" above his signature when he endorses it. If it is crossed, you'll have to deposit it into his account. Given that one can deposit cheques at ATMs, this shouldn't require his presence. Just make sure he endorses it before you leave! It also might take a few more days to clear.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1619a2901c8114a352d54227320b8370",
"text": "\"It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just \"\"endorsed\"\", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3f7ca9a1cecf9f2c6afd951935cb3eb",
"text": "I would recommend wire transfer. I was in your position some years ago, and the US$ cheque took 6 weeks to clear. Wire transfer fees are generally a few tens of pounds, depending on the banks involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d8baa527dda7e3d14ef76cae41eb8f",
"text": "As long as someone is willing to take it, you can write it! I personally wrote a check for a new car. The dealership didn't bat an eye.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27f203d4fad8c85d70ab23f49029d03c",
"text": "This is either laundering money or laundering non-money. All the other answers point out how a cheque or bank transfer will take days to actually clear. That is a red herring! There are lots of ways to illegally transfer real money out of existing accounts. Stolen cheque books, stolen banking details (partly in connection with stolen smartphones and credit cards) and cards, money transfers from other people duped in a similar manner as you are: it is much easier to steal money than invent it, and it takes quite longer until stolen rather than invented money will blow up at the banks. All of those payments will likely properly clear but not leave you in actual legal possession of money. People will notice the missing money and notify police and banks and you will be on the hook for paying back all of it. Cheques and transfers from non-existing accounts, in contrast, tend to blow up very fast and thus are less viable for this kind of scam as the time window for operating the scam is rather small. Whether or not the cheque actually clears is about as relevant of whether or not the Rolls Royce you are buying for $500 because the owner has an ingrown toe nail and cannot press down the accelerator any more has four wheels. Better hope for the Rolls to be imaginary because then you'll only be out of $500 and that's the end of it. If it is real, your trouble is only starting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "429864cad3865aba48afac33c191a0e8",
"text": "\"A check is simply an order to the bank to pay money to someone. The payor's signature on the front of the check is all that's needed to make that order binding. If you read the check carefully, you'll see that it says \"\"Pay to the order of ...\"\"; that's the payor's instruction to the bank, and as payee you can make a further order, to pay the money to someone else, in which case you'd have to endorse the check to make your order binding. But nobody does that any more; instead, people always just deposit checks into their accounts. When you deposit a check, the payor's signature is all that's needed to tell the payor's bank that it should pay the money. If your bank insists on a signature as well, that's just to pretend that they're paying attention in case it turns out that you stole the check. In reality, banks don't pay attention to signatures, nor to the name of the payee. I once put the wrong check into an envelope, and the phone company got a check for something over $700 on a bill of less than $50, payable to some completely different company; they deposited it and gave me a credit for the balance; none of the banks in the transition chain questioned it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb123ade4ccc7cfac85eccb067143e41",
"text": "Assuming it's your business, endorse the check as yourself and your DBA name, payable to your personal account",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58654a927a52b3436e6c0ccfaf535765",
"text": "Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d75dff954aeb4f366304acd2900b66ae",
"text": "How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6956d2e0cb5ed915ef5a29e8e802643e",
"text": "This is dangerous as it is a typical a scam. Trudy convinces Bob to help her avoid an ATM free or some other pretense. She writes Bob a check for $100, but is willing to take only $80 to return the favor. Bob agrees. Bob deposits the check, gives Trudy the $80 and then later finds out the check is bad. In most cases Bob will not be able to find or contact Trudy. However, in some rare cases if Trudy feels Bob is very gullible, she will do the same thing again and again as long as Bob allows. Sometimes the amounts will increase to surprisingly high levels.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d585003ac8bc7e31dd82558e215bafb",
"text": "There is no bank that I know of offering such a feature and I'm not sure what the point of it would be (other than to annoy their customers). If you've been subjected to a fraudulent check your best bet is to either choose to write checks only to trusted parties and/or use your banks BillPay service (they usually issue checks on another account while transferring the money from your account). The drawbacks of your current plan, bounced legitimate checks and high maintenance nature, outweigh the potential benefits of catching a fraudulent check since you're not legally obligated to pay checks you haven't written.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f11642ee9a141532e6f6837656985f1b",
"text": "\"How does this get any business? You'd be surprised on how much profit these type of businesses can bring in and the number of people who cash their checks this way. They make profit off people who want their checks cashed ASAP. Usually cheques written to \"\"cash\"\" or something can just be cashed for free at the bank right? Yes, most banks cash your check for free. Some may not cash it right away and may require a few days to process. Some charge a small fee if the check is not from the same bank. Some personal checks may not even be processed the same day as well. Wouldn't the only cheques that people would cash at these places be bad cheques? Yes and no. Yes because it may be \"\"easier\"\" to try to cash a fraudulent check at these type of check cashing places. However, some places may only cash business checks and require your ID in which they write down the information in order to possibly track you down in the future. Also some places only cash a check to a certain amount. And wouldn't this mean that the business will lose a lot of money since it pays out cash but then has the cheque bounce? Of course the business loses money if the check bounces or is fake. That is why they try to minimize their losses with certain requirements that needs to met before the check can be cashed. Who uses these services exactly? Just about anyone who needs their check cashed ASAP or like ChrisW stated in his answer is trying to keep their money on the low. There is a demand for this service even though it may seem shady to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c970e9e4752025f14c6a88559265046",
"text": "\"The store owners don't know what your intentions are. All they know is they gave you good cash for a bad check. Part of this is that you're paying for the bad acts of others in the past, and these people aren't in the business of trying to understand your intentions. If you show good faith by going in and paying whatever you can, it will go a long way toward getting them to work with you on the balance. I don't know if they'd have much of a criminal case if the check you gave them was clearly marked as \"\"void\"\" and you've shown a willingness to resolve the situation. Of course you can't blame them for not wanting to accept another check from you. Good old hard cash, even if it isn't the full amount, will be a better sign of your intent to repay the debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "042f3105060491ad0d34cfcd506c6e69",
"text": "\"Can you get a cashier's check from your bank, made out in the charity's name, and mail it to the charity? From what I recall of the last few times I've gotten a cashier's check from the bank, it didn't have anything on it that identified me. A determined person could probably trace it back to you, but you're not really looking for strong anonymity. Another possibility would be a postal money order, but I'm not sure whether you can leave the \"\"From\"\" section blank. The money order would have a fee, but the cashier's check should be free. (It is at both my local bank and my CU.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06eb0254bd4b3aea26db481f691fa063",
"text": "I believe so (that you can, not that you are greedy) I run my own business and, generally speaking, am 'charging' my company 40p per mile as per the quote above. I did not know about the ability to claim the shortfall, as it is not relevant to me, but it makes perfect sense and I'm sure that a phone call to HMRC will help you understand how to claim. As for the greedy question - personally I think that laws are there for a reason (both ways) so if there's money to be claimed - there's no reason not to do so, unless of course the hassle is greater than the potential gain. One last note - not sure exactly what the rules around this are, but I know that the allowance is not applicable for one's general commute and so if you're travelling to the same place over 40% of the time for more than two years you are no longer allowed to claim these miles.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f930e2acd54e77a50bd76e526a3cad35",
"text": "\"Question: Does a billion dollars make you 1,000 times more happy than a million dollars? Answer: It doesn't. What counts is not the amount of money, but the subjective improvement that it makes to your life. And that improvement isn't linear, which is way the expected value of the inrease in your happiness / welfare / wellbeing is negative. The picture changes if you consider that by buying a ticket you can tell yourself for one week \"\"next week I might be a billionaire\"\". What you actually pay for is not the expected value of the win, but one week of hope of becoming rich.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
de3de2595d7b9c4829b95e67552460ee
|
Can i have NRE accounts without OCI card?
|
[
{
"docid": "c71de3557af182684fc2d18fdef9250a",
"text": "\"No, you do not need an OCI card to continue to have an NRE or NRO account. You are now classified as a PIO -- Person of Indian Origin -- (and you don't need to have a PIO card issued by the Government of India to prove it) and are entitled to use NRE and NRO accounts just as you were when you were a NRI (NonResident Indian). But, you should inform the banks where you have NRE and NRO accounts that you have changed citizenship, and they may need to go through their KYC (Know Your Customer) process with you all over again. If you don't get an OCI Card, you will need to have an Indian visa stamped into your new US passport to visit India, and please do remember to send your Indian passport to the nearest Indian Consulate for cancellation. Keep the surrender certificate and cancelled passport in your safe deposit box forever; your grandchildren will need it to get visas to visit India. (My granddaughter just did). If you do get an OCI Card, you will need to have an OCI stamp put into your new US passport, and when you renew your US passport, you will need to get the new one stamped too (and pay the fee for that, of course). You cannot enter India with just an OCI Card and a US passport without the OCI stamp in it; that stamp is vital. If you move from one residential address in the US to another, you will need to get a new OCI Card issued because, unlike the US \"\"green card\"\", the OCI card has your residential address on it. Once again, a fee is involved. All these processes take many weeks because the whole paperwork has to go to the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi, and meanwhile, your passport is not available to you for a trip to Europe or Japan or Taiwan or China if you need to go there on business (or for pleasure).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6f0f38a1e602eb0fac9930004d35f15a",
"text": "According to the government website, the answer appears to be no in terms of personal income. However you may want to anyway to start creating RRSP contribution room as well as possibly qualify for GST/HST credit. If your business is registered you are going to be required to file a tax return for it (and if it is a sole proprietorship then you would be required to file a T1 regardless). When all is said and done, it seems that it's probably better to file rather than not file; even if you pay no income tax at least you are sure you won't receive a nasty letter from Revenue Canada in the future :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "113bccb501de23092ce3cb991adfb603",
"text": "In addition to above points : Interest earned on NRE accounts are tax free. But you can deposit any foreign currency except INR. Nothing is taxable. While the NRO account gives you a flexibility to deposit INR too, the interest will be taxable and tax will be deducted at source at the rate of 30.9%. It is necessary to convert the existing Indian local accounts to NRO as per the Reserve Bank of India circular: RBI/2007-2008/242 Master Circular No. 03 /2007- 08 . So basically you need:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1399f2e6614b36a0dda352caa0ebf2f2",
"text": "I have not opened any NRE/NRO account before coming to Finland. This is in violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act. Please get this regularized ASAP. All your savings account need to be converted to NRO. Shall I transfer funds from abroad to both NRE and NRO account or I can transfer only to NRE account in India? You can transfer to NRE or NRO. It is advisable to transfer into NRE as funds from here can be repatriated out of India without any paperwork. Funds from NRO account need paperwork to move out of India. I am a regular tax payer in abroad. The Funds which i'll transfer in future will attract any additional tax in India? As your status is Non Resident and the income is during that period, there is no tax applicable in India on this. Few Mutual Fund SIPs (monthly basis) are linked with my existing saving account in india. Do these SIPs will stop when the savings account will turn into NRO account? Shall I need to submit any documents for KYC compliance? If yes, to whom I should submit these? is there any possibility to submit it Online? Check your Bank / Mutual Fund company. Couple of FDs are also opened online and linked with this existing saving account. Do the maturity amount(s) subject to TDS or any tax implication such as 30.9% as this account will be turned into NRO account till that time and NRO account attracts this higher tax percentage. These are subject to taxes in India. This will be as per standard tax brackets. Which account (NRE/NRO) is better for paying EMIs for Home Loan, SIPs of Mutual Funds, utility bills in India, transfer money to relative's account etc Home Loan would be better from NRE account as if you sell the house, the EMI paid can be credited into NRE account and you can transfer this out of India without much paperwork. Same for SIP's. For other it doesn't really matter as it is an expense. Is there any charge to transfer fund from NRE to NRO account if both account maintain in same Bank same branch. Generally No. Check with your bank. Which Bank account's (NRE/NRO) debit/ATM card should be used in Abroad in case of emergency. Check with your bank. NRE funds are more easy. NRO there will be limits and reporting. Do my other savings accounts, maintained in different Banks, also need to be converted into NRO account? If yes, how can it be done from Abroad? Yes. ASAP. Quite a few leading banks allow you to do this if you are not present. Check you bank for guidance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f7c7476cb54a2419f6dbec086f8dc10",
"text": "In general, deposits into an NRE account must be the proceeds of remittances from outside India. If you send your friend a cheque, denominated in Indian Rupees, drawn on your NRE account (which is an account held in a bank in India), that cheque will most likely be refused by your friend's bank for deposit into your friend's NRE account. Your friend could deposit it into an NRO account, though, but that deposit would likely draw the attention of the income tax people.",
"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": "188569fa7a14ebec46d276bda30793a8",
"text": "If you are looking to open an NRE Account, the banks have now made the process very simple and quick.Here, we will have a detailed look at what NRE Account is and how to open one such account.For more details, visit https://www.icicibank.com/nri-banking/nri-banking.page?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a12d4c02b46a38be2eacbfee2b24c239",
"text": "The OP might have obtained his credit card by now but I'm answering now as there is one more easy way to get a credit card. All major Indian banks like SBI, ICICI, HDFC and Axis issue instant credit cards on opening a FD (Fixed Deposit). For instance ICICI offers one for FD amount of as less as ₹20000. The credit limit on such cards will be 85% of the deposit amount. Another advantage of these kind of cards is customer won't be charged any annual fees and at the same time interest will be paid on original FD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "340a297273a7820bf1162c9bf4dd3fdf",
"text": "Caveat: I have never owned an Indian card but the items below are true for at least three different countries where I have lived in",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fc4c11640af8db441ea8a5b46d91749",
"text": "am I allowed to transfer into NRE account from paypal? Credits into NRE accounts are restricted. It has to be established that the funds being credited are income outside of India. In case of paypal, paypal uses local clearing to credit funds into Bank Accounts. So essentially one cannot credit NRE account by domestic clearing network like NEFT. It is best that you withdraw the funds into Bank Account outside India and use SWIFT or remittance service to credit your NRE account. I do not want to transfer to an NRO account since the money credited into it will become taxable. This is not the right assumption. Credits into NRO are not taxable by default; if you establish that the funds are from outside India, there is no tax on the income money transferred from abroad into the NRO account. However, the interest that will be paid by the bank on the balance of the NRO account is taxable income in India and is subject to TDS. In contrast, interest paid on the balance in an NRE account is not taxable in India and is not subject to TDS as long as you maintain NRI status. However it does make sense to keep accounts segregated, i.e. income generated in India, credit the NRO account and income generated outside India credit to NRE.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "007ae90ae22f4b3fdc02e55709c5873c",
"text": "You might what to check out Interactive Brokers. If your India stock is NSE listed they might be able to do it since they support trading on that exchange. I would talk to a customer service rep there first. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=exchanges&p=asia",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5717dc64a0a7d6b53568555d1bbece24",
"text": "Citizens of India who are not residents to India (have NRI status) are not entitled to have ordinary savings accounts in India. If you have such accounts (e.g. left them behind to support your family while you are abroad), they need to be converted to NRO (NonResident Ordinary) accounts as soon as possible. Your bank will have forms for completion of this process. Any interest that these accounts earn will be taxable income to you in India, and possibly in the U.K. too, though tax treaties (or Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements) generally allow you to claim credit for taxes paid to other countries. Now, with regard to your question, NRIs are entitled to make deposits into NRO accounts as well as NRE (NonResident External) accounts. The differences are that money deposited into an NRE account, though converted to Indian Rupees, can be converted back very easily to foreign currency if need be. However, the re-conversion is at the exchange rate then in effect, and you may well lose that 10% interest earned because of a change in exchange rate. Devaluation of the Indian Rupee as occurred several times in the past 70 years. Once upon a time, it was essentially impossible to take money in an NRO account and convert it to foreign currency, but under the new recently introduced schemes, money in an NRO account can also be converted to foreign currencies, but it needs certification by a CA, and various forms to be filled out, and thus is more hassle. interest earned by the money in an NRE account is not taxable income in India, but is taxable income in the U.K. There is no taxable event (neither in U.K. nor in India) when you change an ordinary savings account held in India into an NRO account, or when you deposit money from abroad into an NRE or NRO account in an Indian bank. What is taxable is the interest that you receive from the Indian bank. In the case of an NRO account, what is deposited into your NRO account is the interest earned less the (Indian) income tax (usually 20%) deducted at the source (TDS) and sent to the Income Tax Authority on your behalf. In the case of an NRE account, the full amount of interest earned is deposited into the NRE account -- no TDS whatsoever. It is your responsibility to declare these amounts to the U.K. income tax authority (HM Revenue?) and pay any taxes due. Finally, you say that you recently moved to the U.K. for a job. If this is a temporary job and you might be back in India very soon, all the above might not be applicable to you since you would not be classified as an NRI at all.",
"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": "1dfdc404c22a79e7c6e79d474694d9a3",
"text": "Current account offers a lot of benefits for sole proprietors. Think of it like bank account for a company. The bank provides a host of facilities for the company. A sole proprietor does not have enough value as that of a company for a bank but needs similar services. Thus Indian banks offer a toned down version of the account offered to a company. Current account offer very good overdraft ( withdrawing money even if balance is zero). This feature is very useful as business cycles and payment schedules can be different for each supplier/customer the sole proprietor does business with. Imagine the sole proprietor account has balance of zero on day 0. customer X made payment by cheque on day 1. Cheques will get credited only on Day 3 (Assume Day 2 is a national holiday or weekend). Sole proprietor gave a cheque to his supplier on day 0. The supplier deposited the cheque on Day 0 and the sole proprietor's bank will debit the the proprietor's account on day 1. As customer's cheque will get credited only day 3, the overdraft facility will let the proprietor borrow from the bank Interestingly, current accounts were offered long before Indian banks started offering customized accounts to corporate customers. The payment schedule mentioned in my example is based on a clearing system > 10 years ago. Systems have become much simpler now but banks have always managed to offer something significantly extra on lines similar to my example above to proprietor over a savings bank account",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2da701703d4434e4476dda2c8679d3f5",
"text": "Most likely, yes. AD&D is insurance against a specific type of peril. Life insurance is, too, but there are fewer exceptions to payout. I'd imagine that you'd have to die by accident, or be dismembered but not die, for it to pay out. The exceptions in the policy are what you need to be concerned about. If loss of you (and your income) would be of financial hardship to your wife and your goals for your family, then you should consider life insurance. (If you do, consider having your wife buy the policy on you, and make sure it's clear that her funds were paying for it. It may be possible to avoid having the payout go into your estate that way.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3fedc92faba0d0eafd6f49b387f11d99
|
How should I go about creating an estate plan?
|
[
{
"docid": "4cb78ac6a605733c56f114b6fa4c3ec8",
"text": "\"Yes, an estate plan can be very important. Estate planning - typically attempts to eliminate uncertainties over the administration of a probate and maximize the value of the estate by reducing taxes and other expenses. Guardians are often designated for minor children and beneficiaries in incapacity. In general, your \"\"estate\"\" includes all of your assets, less all debt, plus death benefits from all life insurance policies not held in an irrevocable trust. The biggest reason to have an estate plan is to make sure that your personal values about both medical and personal finance financial matters are honored in the event that death or incapacity prevents you from acting for yourself. In addition, tax minimization is a further and very important goal of estate planning for persons with taxable estates. To create an estate plan for yourself or update an existing plan, you will most likely need the services of an estate planning attorney. When you consult with an estate planning attorney, the attorney considers how you want assets distributed to heirs, what taxes might your estate be liable for and whether there are tax-minimization strategies that would be appropriate and appealing; what your preferences and values are with respect to the management of medical and financial affairs in the event of incapacity; and any complicating family issues. To deal with these issues, your attorney will need full and accurate information about you, including: When an estate plan is created, be sure you understand what the attorney is saying. Estate planning ideas can be confusing. It is also appropriate and expected for you to ask about the attorney's fee for any legal service. Some articles and resources: Get ahead of your estate planning Estate Planning by CBA\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "57287b1883e7c6b41e47eb1e7699abab",
"text": "What happens to a minor if the parents are missing, or incapacitated, or deceased should be planned now, and not end up a matter for the courts to decide. You might need to sit down with a family lawyer as well as a fee based financial planner, to make sure you have addressed all the relevant details. These details would include where they would live, money, and what the money should be used for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e15a5b72f9e1e52242505a6f3cc09a2c",
"text": "I'll start by saying that if this is being explored to scratch a specific itch you have then great, if this was a cold call it's probably safe to ignore it. Certain whole life products (they vary in quality by carrier) can make sense for very high earners who are looking for additional tax preferred places to store money. So after you IRA, 401(k), etc options are maxed out but you still have income you'd like to hide from taxes whole life can be a potential vehicle because gains and death benefit are generally exempt from income taxes. Be on the look out for loads charged to your money as it comes in to the policy. Life insurance in general is meant to keep your dependents going without having to sell off assets in the event of your death. People may plan for things like school tuition, mortgage/property tax for your spouse. If you own a business with a couple of partners it's somewhat common for the partners to buy policies on each other to buyout a spouse to avoid potential operating conflicts. Sometimes there can be estate planning issues, if you're looking to transfer assets when you ultimately pass it can make sense to form a trust and load cash in to a whole life policy because death benefits can be shielded from income tax and the estate tax calculation; the current estate tax exemption is about $5.5 million today (judging from your numbers you might actually be close to that including the net value of the homes). Obviously, though, the tax rules are subject to change and you need to be deliberate in your formation of the trust in order to effectively navigate estate tax issues. You seem to have a very solid financial position from this perspective it looks like your spouse would be in good shape. If you are specifically attempting to manage potential estate tax liability you should probably involve an financial planner with experience forming and managing trusts; and you should be very involved with the process because it will absolutely make your finances more complicated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15403ed7ab7fbb0b95f83fa531977291",
"text": "I've done this, but on the other side. I purchased a commercial property from someone I had a previous relationship with. A traditional bank wouldn't loan me the money, but the owner was willing to finance it. All of the payments went through a professional escrow company. In our case it was a company called Westar, but I'm sure there are plenty out here. They basically serve as the middle-man, for a fee (something like $5 a payment, plus something to set it up). They have the terms of the loan, and keep track of balances, can handle extra principle payments and what that does to the term of the loan, etc. You want to have a typical mortgage note that is recorded with the local clerk's office. If you look around, you should be able to find a real estate lawyer who can set all this up for you. It will cost you a bit up front, but it is worth it to do this right. As far as taxes, my understanding is that the property itself is taxed the same as any other property transfer. You would owe taxes on the difference between the value of the property when you inherited it and when you sold it. The interest you get from the loan would be taxed as regular income. The escrow company should send you tax forms every year listing the amount of interest that you received. There are also deductions you can take for expenses in the process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fe166820882e28b4e16839301760103",
"text": "You can buy DIY will kits from office supply shopes like Staples or specialized publishers like Nolo or Quicken. The most important factor for you to consider will be the witness rules in your state to ensure the validity of your will later. Nolo has a lot of good information in this regard. Hopefully this is helpful :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1112b5f5bd959c156ff76598295e31ec",
"text": "Debt will ruin any plans. I guess that the interest on the credit cards is about $450 a month or about $5,500 per year and the school loans is about $6,000 a year. Get a an Excel spread sheet going and start tracking your expensed. Learn to make a amortization spread sheet for all debts, and any future debts that you are thinking about. If you want a family soon plan on one income for a period of time. If you buy a house plan on paying it off while you are working. Then the house payment becomes spendable money during retirement. A cheaper house can be upgraded in the right neighborhood with an excellent appreciation in value. Money put into excellent collectibles and kept for 20 years or more is private and off the radar income no taxes when sold. STUDY STUDY LEARN LEARN",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9083d2926ec17fd096fa7a82cf7bebac",
"text": "Keep a list of your accounts, banks, life insurance policies, location of your will, etc, and make sure two people you trust know where you keep that list. Review and update the list at least once a year. This way if something happens to you, your next of kin will have an easier time locating your financial details and final wishes. And having a list also means you won't forget about any of your accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9105dcc20943be4843f28a0b20417d63",
"text": "You really should consider sitting down with an independent financial advisor to run the numbers for the various options and discuss what risks you're comfortable with and what your requirements/goals are. This isn't a simple decision, unfortunately. Advice I've seen suggested that some portion of the money should stay in the market, earning market rate of return. Exactly how much, and invested in what, is complicated. An annuity is essentially an insurance policy. The company assumes the risks and promises you specific payments in exchange for keeping the money. They wouldn't do so if they didn't think that on average they'll pay out less than the combination of your purchase price plus earnings, so you really are paying a fee for this service. Whether it's worth that cost -- and for how much of your money -- depends on how much you have saved and how risk-tolerant you are. I'm going to steal a moment here to point out that many charities offer annuities. These may or may not pay out less than commercial annuities, but the profits go to a better cause either way. If you plan to leave part of your estate as donation to a charity anyway, this basically lets them have the money earlier while you continue to receive income from it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c02e759961fc1045b5c3846be9ea8436",
"text": "The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d822c5af2aa236f2611b473d8506e45",
"text": "You will want to focus on how much is needed for retirement, and what types of investments within the current 401K offerings will get you there. Also will need to discuss non-401K investments such as an IRA, college savings, savings for a house, and an emergency fund. The 401K should be a part of your overall financial picture, how much you invest in the 401K depends on the options you have (Roth 401K available), how much matching (some a little or a lot), and your family plans. You have a few choices: Your company through the 401K provider may provide this service. They may have limited knowledge in what non-401K funds you should invest in, but should be able to discuss types of investment. Fee only planner. They will be able to discus types of investments, and give you some suggestions. Because they don't work on a commission they will not make the investment for you. You need to be able to make the actual selection of investments, so make sure you get criteria to focus on as part of the package. Commission based planner. Will make money off your investment choices. May steer you towards investments that their company offers or ones that offer them the best commissions in that investment type. If the 401K doesn't use funds that the planner can research you will need to provide a copy of the prospectus provided by the 401K. My suggestion is the fee only planner. They balance the limited focus of the 401K company without limiting themselves to the funds their company sells. Before sitting down with the planner get in writing how they fee structure works. A flat fee or hourly fee planner will be expecting you to do all the investment work. This is what you want. Let the fee only planner help you define your plan. But also reanalyze the plan every few years as your needs change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da495692088232caf4109462278745e8",
"text": "\"This is not intended as legal advice, and only covers general knowledge I have on the subject of wills as a result of handling my own finances. Each state of the USA has its own laws on wills and trusts. You can find these online. For example, in Kentucky I found state laws here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/titles.htm and Title XXXIV is about wills and trusts. I would recommend reading this, and then talking to a lawyer if it is not crystal clear. Generally, if a lawyer does not draft your will, then either (1) you have no will, or (2) you use a form or computer program to make a will, that must then be properly witnessed before it is valid. If you don't have it witnessed properly, then you have no will. In some states you can have a holographic will, which means a will in your own handwriting. That's when you have that 3am heart attack, and you get out a pad of paper and write \"\"I rescind all former wills hereby bequeathing everything to my mistress Samantha, and as to the rest of you go rot in hell. \"\" One issue with these is that they have to get to court somehow, and someone has to verify the handwriting, and there are often state laws about excluding a current spouse, so you can guess for yourself whether that one might disappear in the fireplace when another family member finds it next to the body or if a court would give it validity. And there can be logic or grammar problems with do it yourself wills, made in your own handwriting, without experience or good references on how to write things out. Lawyers who have done a bunch of these know what is clear and makes sense. (1) In Tennessee, where I live, an intestate's property, someone who died with no will, is divided according to the law. The law looks to find a spouse or relatives to divide the property, before considering giving it to the state. That might be fine for some people. It happened once in my family, and was resolved in court with minimal red tape. But it really depends on the person. Someone in the middle of an unfinalized divorce, for instance, probably needs a will help to sort out who gets what. (2) A form will is valid in Tennessee if it is witnessed properly. That means two witnesses, who sign in yours' and each others' presence. In theory they can be called to testify that the signature is valid. In practice, I don't know if this happens as I am not a lawyer. I have found it difficult to find witnesses who will sign a form will, and it is disconcerting to have to ask friends or coworkers for this sort of favor as most people learn never to sign anything without reading it. But a lawyer often has secretaries that do it... There is a procedure and a treaty for international wills, which I know about from living overseas. To streamline things, you can get the witnesses to each sign an affidavit after they signed the will. The affidavit is sworn written testimony of what happened, that they saw the person sign their will and sign in each others' presence, when, where, no duress, etc. If done correctly, this can be sufficient to prove the will without calling on witnesses. There is another option (3) you arrange your affairs so that most of your funds are disbursed by banks or brokers holding your accounts. Option (3) is really cheap, most stock brokers and banks will create a Transfer-On-Death notice on your account for free. The problem with this is that you also need to write out a letter that explains to your heirs how to get this money, and you need to make sure that they will get the letter if you are dead. Also, you can't deal with physical goods or appoint a guardian for children this way. The advantage of a lawyer is that you know the document is correct and according to local law and custom, and also the lawyer might provide additional services like storing the will in his safe. You can get personalized help that you can not get with a form or computer program.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92812525244dd89b668832ef75619a77",
"text": "I second all of this. It’s worth noting that not all estates require wealth advice. Unless it’s in the millions of dollars and you have no prior experience, I wouldn’t waste time with wealth advisors. ML is a broker dealer, not a fiduciary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8abcd8bc5d619cea08ed565859364f6",
"text": "\"Former financial analyst here, happy to help you. First off, you are right to not be entirely trusting of advisors and attorneys. They are usually trustworthy, but not always. And when you are new to this, the untrustworthy ones have a habit of reaching you first - you're their target market. I'll give you a little breakdown of how to plan, and a starting investment. First, figure out your future expenses. A LOT of that money may go to medical bills or associated care - don't forget the costs of modifications and customizations to items so you can have a better quality of life. Cars can be retrofit to assist you with a wheelchair, you can build a chair lift into a staircase, things like that which will be important for mobility - all depending on the lingering medical conditions. Mobility and independence will be critically important for you. Your past expenses are the best predictor of future expenses, so filter out the one-time legal and medical costs and use those to predict. Second, for investing there is a simple route to get into the stock market, and hopefully you will hear it a lot: Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). You'll hear \"\"The S&P 500 increased by 80 points today...\"\" on the news; the S&P is a combination of 500 different stocks and is used to gauge the market overall. You can buy an exchange traded fund as a stock, and it's an investment in all those components. There's an ETF for almost anything, but the most popular ones are for those big indexes. I would suggest putting a few hundred thousand into an S&P 500 indexed ETF (do it at maybe $10,000 per month, so you spread the money out and ensure you don't buy at a market peak), and then let it sit there for many years. You can buy stocks through online brokerages like Scottrade or ETrade, and they make it fairly easy - they even have local offices that you can visit for help. Stocks are the easiest way to invest. Once you've done this, you can also open a IRA (a type of retirement account with special tax benefits) and contribute several thousand dollars to it per year. I'll be happy to give more advice if/when you need it, but there are a number of good books for beginning investors that can explain it better than I. I would suggest that you avoid real estate, especially if you expect to move overseas, as it is significantly more complicated and has maintenance costs and taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d64fccb218aa1e292f71b6e3c843f606",
"text": "\"Debts do not inherit to the children. You are absolutely not liable for your parent's debt, in any way whatsoever. ** Collection agents will lie about this; tricking you is their job, and your job is to tell them Heck no, do I look like an idiot? When a person dies, all their personal assets (and debts) go to a fictitious entity called the Estate. This is a holder for the person's assets until they can be dispositioned finally. The estate is managed by a living person, sometimes a company (law firm), called an Executor. Similar to a corporation which is shutting down business, the Executor's job is to act on behalf of the Estate, and in the Estate's best interest (not his own). For instance he can't decide, in his capacity as executor, to give all the estate's money to himself. He has to loyally and selflessly follow state law and any living-trust or wills that may be in place. This role is not for everyone. You can't just decide \"\"la la la, I'm going to live in their house now\"\", that is squatting. The house is an asset and someone inherited that, as dictated by will, trust or state law. That has to be worked out legally. Once they inherit the house, you have to negotiate with them about living there. If you want to live there now, negotiate to rent the house from the estate. This is an efficient way to funnel money into the estate for what I discuss later.** The Estate has assets, and it has debts. Some debts extinguish on the death of the natural person, e.g. student loans, depending on the contract and state law. Did you know corporations are considered a \"\"person\"\"? (that's what Citizens United was all about.) So are estates - both are fictitious persons. The executor can act like a person in that sense. If you have unsecured debt, how can a creditor motivate you to pay? They can annoy and harass you. They can burn your credit rating. Or they can sue you and try to take your assets - but suing is also expensive for them. This is not widely understood, but anyone at any time can go to their creditors and say \"\"Hey creditor, I'm not gonna pay you $10,000. Tough buffaloes. You can sue me, good luck with that. Or, I'll make you a deal. I'll offer you $2000 to settle this debt. What say you? And you'll get one of two answers. Either \"\"OK\"\" or \"\"Nice try, let's try $7000.\"\" If the latter, you start into the cycle of haggling, \"\"3000.\"\" \"\"6000.\"\" \"\"4000.\"\" \"\"5000. \"\"Split the difference, $4500.\"\" \"\"OK.\"\" This is always a one-time, lump sum, one-shot payoff, never partial payments. Creditors will try to convince you to make partial payments. Don't do it. Anyone can do that at any time. Why don't living people do this every day? How about an Estate? Estates are fictitious persons, they don't have a \"\"morality\"\", they have a fiduciary duty. Do they plan on borrowing any more money? Nope. Their credit rating is already 0. They owe no loyalty to USBank. Actually, the executor's fiduciary duty is to get the most possible money for the assets, and settle the debts for the least. So I argue it's unethical to fail to haggle down this debt. If an executor is \"\"not a haggler\"\" or has a moral issue with shortchanging creditors, he is shortchanging the heirs, and he can be sued for that personally - because he has a fiduciary duty to the heirs, not Chase Bank. Like I say, the job is not for everyone. The estate should also make sure to check the paperwork for any other way to escape the debt: does it extinguish on death? Is the debt time-barred? Can they really prove it's valid? Etc. It's not personal, it's business. The estate should not make monthly payments (no credit rating to protect) and should not pay one dime to a creditor except for a one-shot final settlement. Is it secured debt? Let them take the asset. (unless an heir really wants it). When a person dies with a lot of unsecured debt, it's often the case that they don't have a lot of cash lying around. The estate must sell off assets to raise the cash to settle with the creditors. Now here's where things get ugly with the house. ** The estate should try to raise money any other way, but it may have to sell the house to pay the creditors. For the people who would otherwise inherit the house, it may be in their best interest to pay off that debt. Check with lawyers in your area, but it may also be possible for the estate to take a mortgage on the house, use the mortgage cash to pay off the estate's debts (still haggle!), and then bequeath the house-and-mortgage to the heirs. The mortgage lender would have to be on-board with all of this. Then, the heirs would owe the mortgage. Good chance it would be a small mortgage on a big equity, e.g. a $20,000 mortgage on a $100,000 house. Banks love those.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e1e527e43b03ce3729675479ed7ba0b",
"text": "Hire a lawyer familiar with transactional law and they will have a examples in house. Any debt that large will have nuances that Google or Reddit can't help you with. A term sheet is a term sheet but you will want it to be substantial and air tight.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5474673d5aa76b4f48ff13ccc540e477",
"text": "\"Is option trading permitted in the account? Most 401(k) do not permit this. 1 - it means none traded today. 2 - there are 50 outstanding contracts. Each one has a guy who is long and a guy who is short. 3 - not really, it might depend on the stock. 4 - no. With commissions so low, and the inherent leverage of options, one contract reflecting 100 shares of the underlying stock, the minimum is what you can sleep soundly with. 5 - because GLD does not reflect precisely 1/10 oz of gold's price. If you look at the prospectus, it reads \"\"The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of gold bullion, less the Trust’s expenses.\"\" Since there are no dividends to take expenses from, the GLD price will erode by .4% each year compared to the price of 1/10oz gold.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e31d55ed04a67c7307a02dc93d9639c5
|
Credit balance on new credit card
|
[
{
"docid": "794789e2f0d5bff964cb0e03e8c4bdd6",
"text": "Things are generally fine. A credit balance is not a horrible thing. The argument against maintaining a credit balance is that you are essentially loaning the credit card issuer money at 0% interest. You probably have alternative investments that would pay better interest, so it's usually better to park your money there. All that said, it's unlikely that the interest on whatever balance you have is enough to be more than pennies. The way that a credit card works, you run up a balance in one period. Then there is a grace period. If you don't pay off the balance during the grace period, they start charging you interest. You also may have a minimum payment to make. If you don't make that payment, they'll charge you a late fee. The typical period to rack up charges is from the first to the last day of a month. The typical grace period is through the 20th or 25th of the next month. Your card may be different. So check the documentation (user agreement) for your card if you want the real data. It sounds like you paid off some purchases while you were still in the period where you rack up charges. While those purchases were posted to the account, they may not be counted in the balance calculation. If your credit balance exactly matches the payment you made, that's probably what happened. It's also possible that you overpaid the balance. If your credit balance is just a small amount, that's probably what happened. If you really want to be sure, you should call the credit card issuer and ask them. At best we can tell you how it normally works. Since this is your first month, you could just wait for your first bill and respond to that. So long as you pay off the entire balance shown there by the deadline, everything should be fine. Don't wait until the last day to pay. It's usually best to pay a week or so early so as to leave time for the mail to deliver the check and for them to process it. You can wait longer for an online payment, but a few business days early to give you a chance to handle potential problems is still good.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "650ff90eec2c01666fff58abf0adbe90",
"text": "A Credit Balance means that you overpayed. That's nothing to worry about; it will just be used up by your next charges. Note that this can have two reasons - either you really paid too much; or you paid off a charge that is still 'pending' - meaning it has not yet posted and is not considered in the amount you owe: Most charges in restaurants for example are pending for a day or more, because the original charge is your bill without tip (they don't know the tip when the run the card!), and the merchant spends his weekends or evenings to type in the final amount (including tip) and post the pending charge. If this is the case, it will settle ('get posted') in a day or two, and then it will match up.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "06778210831f372d53d90de5ea017bc6",
"text": "\"If you find a credit card with 0% interest, let us know! I guess I'll just be the one to tell you that this belongs in /r/personalfinance No, a new credit card balance won't affect your existing mortgage. However opening that mortgage so recently definitely dinged your credit substantially and it almost definitely hasn't recovered yet so your credit score isn't as good as you think it is from the home purchase. If you can magically finance $4k for 0% APR then obviously you should do that since you're house poor but be absolutely sure you're right about the terms of financing. I normally make purchases like that on a rewards credit card (airline miles) then pay it off immediately but that's just me. Using the word \"\"adulting\"\" answers that question immediately.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b24927fef77052655e106ffadd076973",
"text": "The balance is the amount due.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea6705d66b1d82c46a23d71d6c73fe2f",
"text": "If you don't carry a balance, there is no disadvantage. Merchants pay less for their in-house credit, so there are often incentives for you to use the store card. The perils of opening a credit card hurting your credit score are way overblown in general, if you have good to excellent credit. If you have excellent credit, there is no material effect on your ability to borrow. You'll get knocked down a few points when you open the card, but as long as you're not on a credit application frenzy there isn't an issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3852438eadf70d4f64b7605211bd9ba7",
"text": "\"Stop spending on the CC with the revolving balance. After the discussion below I feel I should clarify that what I am advocating is that you make your \"\"prepayment\"\" (though I disagree with calling it that) to the existing CC. Then, rather than spending on that card, spend somewhere else so you won't accrue any interest related to your spending. At the end of the month, send any excess to the account that has a balance. This question is no different than I have $X of cash, should I let it sit in a savings account or should I send it to my CC balance? Yes, 100%, you should send this $750 to your CC balance. Then, stop spending on that CC and move your daily spending to cash or some other place that won't accrue interest at all. The first step to paying off debt is to stop adding to the balance that accrues interest. It's not worth the energy to determine the change in the velocity of paydown by paying more frequently when you could simply spend on a separate card that doesn't accrue any interest because you pay the entire balance every month. The reason something like this may be advisable on a HELOC but not a CC is the interest rate. A HELOC might run you 4% or 5% while your CC is probably closer to 17%. In one situation your monthly interest is 0.4% and in the other your monthly interest is 1.4%. The velocity of interest accrual at CC rates is just too high to justify ever putting regular spending on top of an existing revolving balance. Additionally, I doubt there is anyone who is advocating for anyone to charge their HELOC for daily spending. You would move daily spending to somewhere that isn't accruing interest no matter what. You would use a HELOC to pay down your CC debt in a lump or make a large purchase in a lump. Your morning coffee should never be spent in a way that will accrue interest immediately, ever. Stop spending on the CC(s) that are carrying a balance. (period) Generally credit cards have a grace period before interest is charged. As long as a balance isn't carried from one statement period to the next you maintain your grace period. If you spend $100 in the first month you have your card, say the period is January 1 to January 31, you'll get a statement saying you owe $100 for January and payment is due by Feb 28. If you pay your $100 statement balance before February 28 you won't pay any interest, even if you charged an additional $500 on February 15; you'll simply get your February statement indicating your statement balance is $500 and payment is due by March 31, still no interest. BUT. If you pay $99 for January, leaving just a single dollar to roll over, you now owe interest on your entire average daily balance. So now you'll receive your February statement indicating $501 + interest on approximately $233.14 of average daily balance ($1 carried + $500 charged on Feb 15) due by March 31. That $1 you let roll over just cost you $3.26 in interest ($233.14 * 0.014). AND. Now that balance is continuing to accrue interest in the month of March until the day you make a payment. It typically takes two consecutive months of payment-in-full before the grace period is restored. There is no sense in continuing to spend on a CC that is carrying a balance and accruing interest even if you intend to pay all of your current month spending entirely. You can avoid 100% of the interest related to your regular spending by simply using a different card, and no rewards will beat the interest you're charged.\"",
"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": "4eaf0a4393b2bcfe45e6f66c8a6ad726",
"text": "My concern is that just moving the balance will make you feel like you've accomplished something, when you really haven't. Sure you'll save on interest but that just reduces the rate at which you're bleeding and doesn't heal the wound. It's entirely likely that you'll feel freed by the reduced balance on the original card, ignore the transferred balance since you aren't paying any interest on it, and soon you'll have two cards that are maxed out. I would instead look at getting your expenses under control. Make sure you have the start of an emergency fund - 1-2k depending on your family situation. If you are single start with 1k; if you have kids bump it up to 2k or maybe a little more just to avoid charging any expenses. Get on a written budget, and don't spend any money in the next month that is not accounted for. Then you can figure out how much you can afford to put towards the credit card. That will also tell you how much interest you're going to pay. The only way I would recommend the balance transfer is if the interest savings (after the balance transfer fee) reduced the time it takes to pay off the card by two or more months (since one month isn't going to make a big difference interest-wise), and you immediately cancelled the original card, and cut up both cards (including the new one), making payments by mail or online. Other than that, the interest saved after the balance transfer fee probably isn't worth the risk of being in a worse situation on the other side.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e39f2aa66c02a22a9eb53c52ff636bd",
"text": "A credit balance can happen any time you have a store return, but paid the bill in full. It's no big deal. Why not just charge the next gas purchase or small grocery store purchase, to cycle it through? Yes - unused cards can get canceled by the bank, and that can hurt your credit score. In the US anyway. I'm guessing it's the same system or similar in Canada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00e5b6849aa3eb56d71d5a50da47a537",
"text": "\"Well, I answered a very similar question \"\"Credit card payment date\"\" where I showed that for a normal cycle, the average charge isn't due for 40 days. The range is 35-55, so if you want to feel good about the float just charge everything the day after the cycle closes, and nothing else the rest of the month. Why is this so interesting? It's no trick, and no secret. By the way, this isn't likely to be of any use when you're buying gas, groceries, or normal purchases. But, I suppose if you have a large purchase, say a big TV, $3000, this will buy you extra time to pay. It would be remiss of me to not clearly state that anyone who needs to take advantage of this \"\"trick\"\" is the same person who probably shouldn't use credit cards at all. Those who use cards are best served by charging what they can afford to pay at that moment and not base today's charges on what paychecks will come in by the due date of the credit card bill.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "324dec77ef8d8f5f9ab800ddf5fdd5be",
"text": "Some credit card rewards programs will not give you rewards for balances paid off early. I have a Capitol One Platinum card, and once paid off the full balance; both the full amount due for the recently ended billing period, and the amount that had accrued for the current billing period. I never received any reward points for the additional amount. Though this sounds like it's paying even earlier than you're talking about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea8cf8c3c885adde83b300efe2cc62d0",
"text": "When you create a liability account with an opening balance, this creates a transaction to the account Equity:Opening Balance. You really want this transaction to be an expense. I would delete the TEST account and the transactions you have made so far, and start again. Make a liability account (call it Liabilities:Overdue Cable Bill or something similar instead of the uninformative TEST) with an opening balance of 0, and create a transaction dated 01/09/14 which debits Liabilities:Overdue Cable Bill (showing up in the right-hand column as a charge) and credits Expenses:Cable (in the left-hand column as an expense). To check that the sign is right, Liabilities:Overdue Cable Bill should now have a positive balance, because money is owed. This indicates that you spent money you didn't have on cable, and now you owe the cable company. When you pay off the debt, make a transaction that debits (right column) Assets:Cash in Wallet and credits Liabilities:Overdue Cable Bill (left column). Now you should have a reduced balance in Assets:Cash in Wallet and a zero balance in Liabilities:Overdue Cable Bill, and the entry in Expenses:Cable is still there to indicate where the money went. This assumes you paid the bill in cash from your wallet; if you paid it by check or bank transfer or something else, you probably want to substitute Assets:Cash in Wallet with Assets:Checking Account or whatever is appropriate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b13b0be848881f207f07f18d7f4d49e1",
"text": "Your credit card company will send you funds, probably a paper check, if you have a negative balance. So this situation will not last long. I'd guess 3-6 months at most, depending on the company's procedures.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc87b8f551e2bc7d73efaf789f7007ef",
"text": "\"This question has been absolutely perplexing to me. It has spawned a few heated debates amongst fellow colleagues and friends. My laymen understanding has provided me with what I believe to be a simple answer to the originator's question. I'm trying to use common sense here; so be gentle. FICO scores, while very complex and mysterious, are speculatively calculated from data derived from things like length of credit history, utilization, types of credit, payment history, etc. Only a select few know the actual algorithms (closely guarded secrets?). Are these really secrets? I don't know but it's the word on the street so I'm going with it! Creditors report data to these agencies on certain dates- weekly, monthly or annually. These dates may be ascertained by simply calling the respective creditor and asking. Making sure that revolving credit accounts are paid in full during the creditors \"\"data dump\"\" may or may not have a positive impact on ones FICO score. A zero balance reported every time on a certain account may appear to be inactive depending on how the algorithm has been written and vice versa; utilization and payment history may outweigh the negativity that a constantly zero balance could imply. Oh Lord, did that last sentence just come out of my head? I reread it four times just make sure it makes sense. My personal experience with revolving credit and FICO I was professionally advised to: Without any other life changing credit instances- just using the credit card in this fashion- my FICO score increased by 44 points. I did end up paying a little in interest but it was well worth it. Top tier feels great! In conclusion I would say that the answer to this question is not cut and dry as so many would imply. HMMMMM\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b251bd183b378842ff6da7ed601a96b7",
"text": "\"In the US, if your monthly statement was issued by the credit card company on January 1 and it showed a balance of $1000, then a payment must be made towards that balance by January 25 or so, not February 1 as you say, to keep the card in good standing. The minimum payment required to keep the card in good standing is specified in your monthly statement, and failure to meet this requirement can trigger various consequences such as an increase in the interest rate charged by the credit card company. With regard to interest charges, whether your purchase of $2000 on January 3 is charged interest or not depends entirely on what happened the previous two months. If you had paid both your monthly statements dated November 1 and December 1 of the previous year in full by the their respective due dates of November 25 and December 25, and the $1000 balance on the January 1 statement is entirely due to purchases (no cash advances) made in December, then you will not be charged interest on your January purchase of $2000 as long as you pay it off in full by February 25 (the charge will appear on your February 1 statement). But, if you had not paid your December 1 statement in full by December 25, then that $1000 billed to you on January 1 will include purchases made during December finance charges on the unpaid balance from the previous month plus finance charges on the purchases made during December. The finance charges will continue to accumulate during January until such time as you pay off the bill in full (these charges will appear on your February 1 statement), hopefully by the due date of January 25. But even if you pay off that $1000 in full on January 25, your charge of $2000 on January 3 will start to accumulate finance charges as of the day it hits the account and these finance charges will appear on your February 1 statement. If you paid off that $1000 on January 10, say, then maybe there will be no further finance charges on the $2000 purchase on January 3 after January 10 but now we are getting into the real fine print of what your credit card agreement says. Ditto for the case when you pay off that $1000 on January 2 and made the $2000 charge on January 3. You most likely will not be charged interest on that $2000 charge but again it depends on the fine print. For example, it might say that you will be charged interest on the average of the daily balances for January, but will not be charged interest on purchases during the February cycle (unless you miss the February 25 payment and the whole cycle starts all over again). As a general rule, it takes two monthly cycles of payment in full by the due date before one gets into the state of no finance charges for new purchases and effectively an \"\"interest-free\"\" loan of $2000 from January 3 (date of purchase) till February 25 (due date of payment). Matters become more complicated when cash advances are taken from a credit card which are charged interest from the day they are taken but don't trigger finance charges on new purchases or the so-called \"\"zero percent balance transfer offers\"\" are accepted.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95d09eb0abac324be064402b319b207c",
"text": "I'm not sure if someone else answered already in the same manner I will. I can't guarantee for sure if it's the same in the U.S.A. (it might since major credit cards companies like Visa/MC/AMEX are American companies) but in Canada having/keeping unused CC is a disadvantage because of the following: Banks and financing companies look more at the total amount of credit available to you than at how much purchases you have on your cards. Ex: Let's say that you have the following: - Visa cc with $10,000 limit and $2000 worth of purchases (made more than 30 days ago) on it. - Mastercard cc with $10,000 limit as well and $1000 worth of purchases (less than 30 days old) - A major retail store cc with $2000 limit and $0 balance. Hypothetical situation: You want a bank loan to do some expensive house repairs and are looking for a lower interest rate than what your cc can offer. The bank will not care about the amount on the cards. They will add-up all the limits of your cc and treat your loan request as if ALL your cards were filled to their respective limit. So in this case: they will consider you as being right now in debt of $10K+$10K+$2K = $22,000 instead of only $3000 and they might: 1. refuse you the loan 2. grant it only if you transfer all purchases on a single card and cancel all the others. 3. Once the $3000 is transferred on one of the cards (and the others cancelled), they can require that you reduce the limit of that card. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85297a8d9bd54e5aa6f686aafb566160",
"text": "\"You can find gold historical prices on the kitco site. See the \"\"View Data\"\" button.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
76acb80d4ed9cefe5988a8179dffd03b
|
What is the future of 401(k) in terms of stability and reliability?
|
[
{
"docid": "2718a31eaa687938f260a38571913c0d",
"text": "\"My guess is that the point is that yields on bonds and cash equivalents is so low that inflation will cause the inflation-adjusted returns to be negative. There is something to be said for how much inflation can eat out of investment returns. At the same time, I would note the occupation of the person making that post along with what biases this person likely has. \"\"Entrepreneur, Started & sold several cos, Author 11 books (latest \"\"Choose Yourself!\"\") , Angel Inv., JamesAltucher.com\"\" would to me read as someone that isn't who I'd turn for investment advice when it comes to employer-sponsored plans. Be careful of what you blindly follow as sometimes that is how wolves lead the sheep to slaughter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc3d48259d5f94ea4b2f9e5f8ee45386",
"text": "\"The same author wrote in that article “they have a trillion? Really?” But that’s what happens when ten million dollars compounds at 2% over 200 years. Really? 2% compounded over 200 years produces a return of 52.5X, multiply that by 10M and you have $525 million. The author is off by a factor of nearly 2000 fold. Let's skip this minor math error. The article is not about 401(k)s. His next line is \"\"The whole myth of savings is gone.\"\" And the article itself, \"\"10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014\"\" is really a manifesto about why working for the man is not the way to succeed long term. And in that regard, he certainly makes good points. I've read this author over the years, and respect his views. 9 of the 10 points he lists are clear and valuable. This one point is a bit ambiguous and falls into the overgeneraluzation \"\"Our 401(k) have failed us.\"\" But keep in mind, even the self employed need to save, and in fact, have similar options to those working for others. I have a Solo 401(k) for my self employment income. To be clear, there are good 401(k) accounts and bad. The 401(k) with fees above 1%/yr, and no matching, awful. The 401(k) I have from my job before I retired has an S&P index with .02%/yr cost. (That's $200/$million invested per year.) The 401(k) is not dead.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cf0565bf8be7594385e7725cc7aa7cf",
"text": "\"Let's pretend that the author of that article is not selling anything and is trying to help you succeed in life. I have nothing against sales, but that author is throwing out a lot of nonsense to sell his stuff and is creating a state of urgency so that people adopt this mindset. It's clever and it obviously works. From a pure time perspective, most people won't make enough money to run their own business and be as profitable as if they worked for a company. This is a reality that few want to acknowledge. If you invested in yourself and your career with the same discipline and urgency as an entrepreneur, most people would be better off at a company when you consider the benefits and the fact that employees have a full 7.5% of social security paid by their employer (entrepreneurs see the full 15% while employees don't). Why do I start here, because this author isn't telling you that the more people take his advice, the more their earnings will regress to the mean or below. In fact, most of my entrepreneur friends have to go back to work when their reality fails after they burn through their savings. 401ks are not a perfect system, but there are more 401k millionaires now than ever before this, and people who give the author's advice are always looking to avoid doing what they need to do - save for retirement. Most people I know sadly realize this in their 50s, when it's too late, and start trying to \"\"catch up.\"\" I don't blame the author for this, as he knows his article will appeal to younger people who don't have the wisdom to see that his advice hasn't been great for most. The reality is that for most people 401ks will provide tax advantaged savings that you can use when you're older; taxes will eat at your earnings, so these accounts really help. Finally, look at the article again especially the part you quote. He says inflation will carve out what you save, yet inflation is less than 2%. Where is he getting this from? In the past decade, we've seen numerous deflationary spirals and the market overall has come back from the fall in 2009. Again, this isn't \"\"good enough\"\" for this author, so buy his stuff to learn how to succeed! There have been numerous decades (50s,70s) that were much worse for investors than this past one.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ba545d0ffb72e46b1873ca833d5f71bf",
"text": "I would say that it depends. If you have to do it now, or in the near future, I would keep the pension, as I think the current market is overpriced and approaching bubble status. (And, to interject politics, because I'm pretty sure Trump will screw it up before too long.) If you can take the money out and invest after it crashes, though... Though I'm sure that some people will object to this as market timing, I had a similar opportunity in '09. I took the money, moved it into an IRA invested mostly in index & international funds, and have been quite satisfied with the result.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74c020c4969af53f64ab7f5211d86b49",
"text": "\"The gross liabilities (benefit obligation) will still be there, regardless. They are *future* benefits. Sure, you can increase funding to the plan to eliminate the *net* pension liability, but why? The new assets would earn very little. The shortfall is not an excessively large risk. The only reason seems to be the \"\"all-consuming focus on immediate results\"\" which is more rhetoric than reality in this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b550cd328fc152dabda777f75e4d49b",
"text": "The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829",
"text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "883e13003661c691b6adae423ffef8b1",
"text": "\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddaec831da2ea04d33237c7a9d7a2a9b",
"text": "Are you sure the question even makes sense? In the present-day world economy, it's unlikely that someone young who just started working has the means to put away any significant amount of money as savings, and attempting to do so might actually preclude making the financial choices that actually lead to stability - things like purchasing [the right types and amounts of] insurance, buying outright rather than using credit to compensate for the fact that you committed to keep some portion of your income as savings, spending money in ways that enrich your experience and expand your professional opportunities, etc. There's also the ethical question of how viable/sustainable saving is. The mechanism by which saving ensures financial stability is by everyone hoarding enough resources to deal with some level of worst-case scenario that might happen in their future. This worked for past generations in the US because we had massive amounts (relative to the population) of (stolen) natural resources, infrastructure built on enslaved labor, etc. It doesn't scale with modern changes the world is undergoing and it inherently only works for some people when it's not working for others. From my perspective, much more valuable financial skills for the next generation are:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19b77118c82ee59413679b2e08b53b94",
"text": "I have read in many personal finance books that stocks are a great investment for the long term, because on average they go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index, but is there reason to believe this trend will continue indefinitely into the future? It has also been wrong for 20+ year time periods during those last 100 years. It's an average, and you can live your whole career at a loss. There are many things to support the retention of the average, over the next 100 years. I think the quip is out of scope of your actual investment philosophy. But basically there are many ways to lower your cost basis, by reinvesting dividends, selling options, or contributing to your position at any price from a portion of your income, and by inflation, and by the growth of the world economy. With a low enough cost basis then a smaller percentage gain in the index gives you a magnified profit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "5baab23655fcb5e43bd9fbdbbb8e2704",
"text": "So an investor would get their principal back in interest payments after 13.5 years if things remained stable, not accounting for discounting future cash flows/any return for the risk they are taking. The long maturity helps insurance companies and pensions properly match the duration of their liabilities. Still doesn't seem like a good bet, but it makes sense that it happened.",
"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": "cec3aa0b253783266df657ccf1b9adb4",
"text": "Too much of a focus on short term goals. They will do almost anything to maximize the numbers for each quarter at the expense of future quarters. Leadership incentives were not long term. So if I decide not to invest in some future technology or business so my cash is higher this quarter, I get a bigger bonus but also handicap future earnings a few years away",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5b9a2379fe0e363b5e4f935c7eda594",
"text": "\"Defining risk tolerance is often aided with a series of questions. Such as - You are 30 and have saved 3 years salary in your 401(k). The market drops 33% and since you are 100% S&P, you are down the same. How do you respond? (a) move to cash - I don't want to lose more money. (b) ride it out. Keep my deposits to the maximum each year. Sleep like a baby. A pro will have a series of this type of question. In the end, the question resolves to \"\"what keeps you up at night?\"\" I recall a conversation with a coworker who was so risk averse, that CDs were the only right investment for her. I had to explain in painstaking detail, that our company short term bond fund (sub 1 year government paper) was a safe place to invest while getting our deposits matched dollar for dollar. In our conversations, I realized that long term expectations (of 8% or more) came with too high a risk for her, at any level of her allocation. Zero it was.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "88503afa549aad8dc89116885c39d1de",
"text": "Via www.socialsecurity.gov: As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted. These estimates reflect the intermediate assumptions of the Social Security Board of Trustees in their 2009 Annual Trustees Report. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been making similar estimates for several years that tend to be somewhat more optimistic than the trustees' estimates principally because CBO assumes faster growth in labor productivity and real earnings levels for the future. Doesn't seem too optimistic from the program itself. Also, it is true that recessions end, but in our current state of being trillions of dollars in debt, does it look like things are on the upswing?",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7935b6d2db03724aa9fbfc454b0d033a
|
A debt collector will not allow me to pay a debt, what steps should I take?
|
[
{
"docid": "7e58afb664df28c7ccaa1640bc7d561a",
"text": "This may not apply in your particular situation, but I think it's important to mention: When a debt collector doesn't act like a debt collector, it may be because they aren't actually a debt collector. It's certainly strange that someone called you to collect money from you, and when you asked for a simple document, they not only got off the phone quickly but they also told you the debt would be cancelled. That just doesn't make sense: Why would they cancel the debt? Why wouldn't they send you the document? My initial impression is that you were possibly being scammed. The scam can take on many forms: Whenever you are called by a debt collector (or someone pretending to be one), it's a good idea to verify their identity first. More info here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c76b97fce53688c272eebaeee2f0c8d",
"text": "What you are describing here is the opposite of a problem: You're trying to contact a debt-collector to pay them money, but THEY'RE ignoring YOU and won't return your calls! LOL! All joking aside, having 'incidental' charges show up as negative marks on your credit history is an annoyance- thankfully you're not the first to deal with such problems, and there are processes in place to remedy the situation. Contact the credit bureau(s) on which the debt is listed, and file a petition to have it removed from your history. If everything that you say here is true, then it should be relatively easy. Edit: See here for Equifax's dispute resolution process- it sounds like you've already completed the first two steps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa9d259510819cd62f0e479e8728860b",
"text": "\"You say your primary goal is to clean up your credit report, and you're willing to spend some cash to do it. OK. But beware: the law in this area is a funhouse mirror, everything works upside down and backwards. To start, let's be clear: Credit reports are not extortion to force you into paying. They are a historical record of your creditworthiness, and almost impossible to fix without altering history. Paying on this debt will affirm the old data was correct, and glue it to your report. Here's how credit reporting works for R-9 (sent to collections) amounts. The data is on your credit report for 7 years. The danger is in this clock being restarted. What will not restart the clock? Ignoring the debt, talking casusally to collectors, and the debt being sold from one collector to another. What will restart the clock? Acknowledging the debt formally, court judgment, paying the debt, or paying on the debt (obviously, paying acknowledges the debt.) Crazy! You could have a debt that's over 7 years old, pay it because you're a decent person, and BOOM! Clock restarts and 7 more years of bad luck. Even worse-- if they write-off or forgive any part of the debt, that's income and you'll need to pay income tax on it. Ugh! Like I say, the only way to remove a bad mark is to alter history. Simple fact: The collector doesn't care about your bad credit mark; he wants money. And it costs a lot of money, time and/or stress for both of you to demand they research it, negotiate, play phone-tag, and ultimately go to court. So this works very well (this is just the guts, you have to add all the who, what, where, signature block, formalities etc.): 1 Company and Customer absolutely disagree as to whether Customer owes Company this debt: (explicitly named debt with numbers and amount) 2 But Company and Customer both eagerly agree that the expense, time, and stress of research, negotiation, and litigation is burdensome for both of us. We both strongly desire a quick, final and no-fault solution. Therefore: 3 Parties agree Customer shall pay Company (acceptable fraction here). Payment within 30 days. To be acknowledged in writing by Company. 4 This shall be absolute and final resolution. 5 NO-FAULT. Parties agree this settlement resolves the matter in good faith. Parties agree this settlement is done for practical reasons, this bill has not been established as a valid debt, and any difference between billed and settled amount is not a canceled nor forgiven debt. 6 Neither party nor its assigns will make any adverse statements to third parties relating to this bill or agreement. Parties agree they have a continuous duty to remove adverse statements, and agree to do so within seven days of request. 7 Parties specifically agree no adverse mark nor any mark of any kind shall be placed on Customer's credit report; and in the event such a mark appears, Parties will disavow it continuously. Parties agree that a good credit report has a monetary value and specific impacts on a customer's life. 8 Jurisdiction of law shall be where the effects are felt, and that shall be (place of service) regarding the amounts of the bill proper. Severable, inseparable, counterparts, witness, signature lines blah blah. A collector is gonna sign this because it's free money and it's not tricky. What does this do? 1, 2 and 5 alter history to make the debt never have existed in the first place. To do this, it must formally answer the question of why the heck would you pay a debt that isn't real and you don't owe: out of sheer practicality; it's cheaper than Rogaine. This is your \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card both with the credit bureaus and the IRS. Of course, 3 gives the creditor motivation to go along with it. 6 says they can't burn your credit. 7 says it again and they're agreeing you can sue for cash money. 8 lets you pick the court. The collector won't get hung up on any of these since he can easily remove the bad mark. (don't be mad that they won't do it \"\"for free\"\", that's what 3 is for.) The key to getting them to take a settlement is to be reasonable and fair. Make sure the agreement works for them too. 6 says you can't badmouth them on social media. 4 and 5 says it can't be used against them. 8 throws them a bone by letting them sue in their home court for the bill they just settled (a right they already had). If it's medical, add \"\"HIPAA does not apply to this document\"\" to save them a ton of paperwork. Make it easy for them. You want the collector to take it to his boss and say \"\"this is pretty good. Do it.\"\" Don't send the money until their signed copy is in your hands. Then send promptly with an SASE for the receipt. Make it easy for them. This is on you. As far as \"\"getting them to send you an offer\"\", creditors are reluctant to mail things especially to people they don't think will pay, because it costs them money to write and send. So you may need to be proactive about running them down with your offer. Like I say, it's a funhouse mirror.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e18a6ca79cdbe05daed214257d18350c",
"text": "\"This is somewhat unbelievable. I mean if you had a business of collecting debts, wouldn't you want to collect said debts? Rather than attempting to browbeat people with these delinquent debts into paying, you have someone volunteering to pay. Would you want to service that client? This would not happen in just about any other industry, but such is the lunacy of debt collecting. The big question is why do you need this cleared off your credit? If it is just for a credit score, it probably is not as important as your more recent entries. I would just wait it out, until 7 years has passed, and you can then write the reporting agencies to remove it from your credit. If you are attempting to buy a home or similarly large purpose and the mortgage company is insisting that you deal with this, then I would do the following: Write the company to address the issue. This has to be certified/return receipt requested. If they respond, pay it and insist that it be marked as paid in full on your credit. I would do this with a money order or cashiers check. Done. Dispute the charge with the credit reporting agencies, providing the documentation of no response. This should remove the item from your credit. Provide this documentation to the mortgage broker. This should remove any hangup they might have. Optional: Sue the company in small claims court. This will take a bit of time and money, but it should yield a profit. There was a post on here a few days ago about how to do this. Make part of any settlement to have your name cleared of the debt. It is counterproductive to fall into the trap of the pursuit of a perfect credit score. A person with a 750 often receives the same rate options as a person with 850. Also your relationship with a particular lender could trump your credit score. Currently I am \"\"enjoying\"\" the highest credit score of my life, over 820. Do you know how I did it? I got out of debt (including paying off the mortgage) and I have no intentions of ever going into debt for anything. So why does it matter? It is a bit ridiculous.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00bd09a0e1ad8996b87e451d0b0c0dd5",
"text": "This doesn't seem to explain the odd behavior of the collector, but I wanted to point out that the debt collector might not actually own the debt. If this is the case then your creditor is still the original institution, and the collector may or may not be allowed to actually collect. Contact the original creditor and ask how you can pay off the debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e04a6a482c4d33b7cb0fdf8682ac7c1c",
"text": "Send a well-documented payment to the original creditor. Do it in such a way that you would have the ability to prove that you sent a payment if they reject it. Should they reject it, demonstrate that to the credit reporting bureaus.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b4c8a00c2ccd550325c09cc501ffa17f",
"text": "You can either write it off or pursue it. If you write it off I wouldn't do business with the client again, until they bring their balance owed to you back to zero. If you pursue it, try to reach out to the client and find out why they are not paying what they owe you and try to work out a deal with them if they seem negotiable. If they aren't negotiable then you could take the issue to court, but you'll only be proving a point by then.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aeb0c9abfaa7920728c48c36ff87c571",
"text": "According to LegalZoom: If your debtor is unwilling to pay and you know they have the means, it's time to use your local sheriff. You have three options to collect: a bank levy, wage garnishment, or a real estate lien. It sounds like you'll need to reach out to your local police/sheriff's department and they can further help you out and get you your money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d2cba2470a3995bf4629d10ac0cb853",
"text": "It looks like your visa being refused is entirely irrelevant. What happens in bankruptcy is that all the assets of the bankrupt entity are taken over, liquidated, and the proceeds are distributed to the creditors. You're one of the creditors, and as you've been told - the proceeds are not enough to pay all the creditors in full. This is quite common in bankruptcies. What you can do is sue in court and demand priority over other creditors, but... a. You're exactly the same as many other creditors (rest of the students), so why would you get a priority? b. Suing costs money and even if you get more, you'll pay way more for legal fees and expenses. What else can you do? If you paid with a credit card - your credit card company may be able to reverse charges. Sometimes that works, depending on how fast you move. If you paid with a check - your bank may similarly be able to stop payment on the check. This provided it hasn't been settled yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "935727f455dbdcdac5aa776580a95ca5",
"text": "The bank will sell your debt to a collection agency, that will then follow you everywhere you go and demand payment. They will put a negative notice on your credit report preventing you from getting any new credit, and might sue you in court and take over some or all of your assets through court judgement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "072994dbe625e6a32f9f58bd362b5233",
"text": "There is no law requiring someone to return a refused check. You need to clarify whether this payment is to establish a retainer, or to pay for services rendered. Either way you should stop payment on the check and send them a certified letter explaining that you are stopping payment on the check because they refused it. If the payment is to establish a retainer, then the issue is simple: the lawyer requires $10,000 as a retainer before you can engage them and until then you have no relationship with them. If that is the amount they want, then less than that is not accepted. If the payment is for services rendered already and you owe them money, then it is a completely different situation. Refusing partial payment means they are getting ready to sue you. In a collection suit, the larger the amount is, the better. Normally, someone owed money will only refuse a partial payment if they anticipate having to sue the debtor and they want to maximize their leverage in case of a court judgement in their favor. A creditor has the right to refuse a partial payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "add38ca7424072cd6aa0226650874a23",
"text": "\"I had about $16k in student loans. I defaulted on the loans, and they got > passed to a collection type agency (OSCEOLA). These guys are as legitimate as a collection agency can be. One thing that I feel is very sketchy is when they were verifying my identity they said \"\"Does your Social Security Number end in ####. Is your Birthday Month/Day/Year.\"\" That is not sketchy. It would be sketchy for a caller to ask you to give that information; that's a common scheme for identity theft. OSCEOLA are following the rules on this one. My mom suggested I should consider applying for bankruptcy Won't help. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. You have the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act passed during the Bush 43 regime for that. The loan itself is from school. What school? Contact them and ask for help. They may have washed their hands of your case when they turned over your file to OSCEOLA. Then again, they may not. It's worth finding out. Also, name and shame the school. Future applicants should be warned that they will do this. What can I do to aid in my negotiations with this company? Don't negotiate on the phone. You've discovered that they won't honor such negotiations. Ask for written communications sent by postal mail. Keep copies of everything, including both sides of the canceled checks you use to make payments (during the six months and in the future). Keep making the payments you agreed to in the conversation six months ago. Do not, EVER, ignore a letter from them. Do not, EVER, skip going to court if they send you a summons to appear. They count on people doing this. They can get a default judgement if you don't show up. Then you're well and truly screwed. What do you want? You want the $4K fee removed. If you want something else, figure out what it is. Here's what to do: Write them a polite letter explaining what you said here. Recount the conversation you had with their telephone agent where they said they would remove the $4K fee if you made payments. Recount the later conversation. If possible give the dates of both conversations and the names of the both agents. Explain the situation completely. Don't assume the recipient of your letter knows anything about your case. Include evidence that you made payments as agreed during the six months. If you were late or something, don't withhold that. Ask them to remove the extra $4K from your account, and ask for whatever else you want. Send the letter to them with a return receipt requested, or even registered mail. That will prevent them from claiming they didn't get it. And it will show them you're serious. Write a cover letter admitting your default, saying you relied on their negotiation to set things straight, and saying you're dismayed they aren't sticking to their word. The cover letter should ask for help sorting this out. Send copies of the letter with the cover letter to: Be sure to mark your letter to OSCEOLA \"\"cc\"\" all these folks, so they know you are asking for help. It can't hurt to call your congressional representative's office and ask to whom you should send the letter, and then address it by name. This is called Constituent Service, and they take pride in it. If you send this letter with copies you're letting them know you intend to fight. The collection agency may decide it's not worth the fight to get the $4K and decide to let it go. Again, if they call to pressure you, say you'd rather communicate in writing, and that they are not to call you by telephone. Then hang up. Should I hire a lawyer? Yes, but only if you get a court summons or if you don't get anywhere with this. You can give the lawyer all this paperwork I've suggested here, and it will help her come up to speed on your case. This is the kind of stuff the lawyer would do for you at well over $100 per hour. Is bankruptcy really an option Certainly not, unfortunately. Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators. You are their lawful prey. They look at you, lick their chops, and think, \"\"food.\"\" Watch John Oliver's takedown of that industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxUAntt1z2c Good luck and stay safe.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f1831a82af5d517f86b946c720d2d22",
"text": "One issue is whether it is a scam or the collector has a right to collect. Another issue is the statute of limitations period on the debt. If it has expired, the creditor cannot get a court judgement against the borrower (if the borrower contests it). However, if the borrower makes a payment, or promises to pay, the time resets to zero, starting a new period subject to valid court action. In the U.S. the length of this period varies by state. (This period is different from the amount of time a debt can be listed on a credit report.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "959924b2f01c7bf14d53a264a04fd2ef",
"text": "If you're reasonably sure that the client isn't acting in good faith and you have no intention of doing business with them again, you can still make back some of the money. Sell the debt to a collections agency if you don't want to go through the hassle of suing. Make sure they're actually ignoring you though. A friendly, non-confrontational phone call might jiggle something loose. Especially if you give them the option to set up some sort of payment plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9de70bcd9812008c3cdf3d20cee28ba",
"text": "I had a similar situation, except the debtor had no connection to us whatsoever, other than holding our phone number previously. We tried going through channels to deal with it, and had no success. At the end of the day, I was very abusive to the people calling, and forwarded the number to a very irritating destination.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe99b41d907d9b288aded1f73ee0df29",
"text": "In month 9 you still owe $7,954.25. You need to pay that, plus the $250. At that line, you haven't made the payment, the rest of the line with next month's payment due. So you haven't paid the $242.47 in col 4.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dd39c134b021fc7a9cdd1e9649d9123",
"text": "\"Whether or not PayPal itself reports to the credit bureaus, the collector **will**. That said, you can demand the collector \"\"validate\"\" the debt, which if you were scammed could make for an interesting scenario - PayPal *doesn't* normally play the role of a creditor, so the very fact that you \"\"owe\"\" them money is an unusual situation in and of itself. I'm not entirely sure how they would go about validating that debt - They haven't provided you any goods or services, you don't have any form of loan outstanding with them... The legitimacy of the \"\"debt\"\" consists **entirely** of them siding with the other party in a he-said-she-said dispute. I'd be interested to hear what the collector replies with when you demand validation of the debt!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24b171d757ef9cc138878484923fbde",
"text": "\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a63d03786cd064808fb119a8a7f559e",
"text": "\"You should hire a lawyer. The fact that they told you your personal information shows that they actually had it, and are not imposters, which is a good thing. The fact that they mislead you means that their intentions are not pure (which is not surprising coming from a collection agency of course). When dealing with collections (or any matter of significance for that matter), don't rely on their recording of the call, because they can always conveniently lose it. Make sure to write down every single detail discussed, including the date and time of the call, and the ID/name of the person on the other side. If possible - make your own recording (notifying them of it of course). It's too late to record the calls now, but do try to reconstruct as much information as possible to provide to your lawyer to deal with it. In the end of the day they will either provide you with the recording (and then you might be surprised to hear that what they said was not in fact what you thought they said, and it was just your wishful thinking, it is very possible to be indeed the case), or claim \"\"we lost it\"\" and then it will be a problem to either of you to prove who said what, but they'll have the better hand (having better lawyers) in convincing the court that you're the one trying to avoid paying your debts. That is why proper representation at all stages is important. As to the bankruptcy - it won't help for student loans, student loans is one of the very few types of debts you can't really run away from. You have to solve this, the sooner the better. Get a professional advice. For the future (and for the other readers) - you should have gotten the professional advice before defaulting on these loans, and certainly after the first call.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f835241b80adbd4d0bfb3452405ec9a",
"text": "\"Time-Barred Debts and STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATION ON COLLECTING DEBTS are good places to start on the issues of what can be collected and for how long. What seems to be at issue is bankruptcy vs. time-barred debts vs. what creditors (original debt owners, not collection agencies or those who buy debt) can do. You should also check out The Fair Credit Reporting Act which governs some of the question. The Fair Credit Reporting Act and the section on time-barred debts applies to collection agencies, etc. (so-called debt owners as pointed out by @littleadv, since they buy debt from the creditors) not actual creditors (those the debt is/was originally owed to). Creditors (those to whom the debt was originally owed) have different rules than debt collectors and can do things debt collectors can't. State law generally governs what creditors, as original owners of the debt, can do legally and for how long. Bankruptcy Bankruptcy is a legal action that frees someone from paying all or part of debt owed (they are crying \"\"Uncle!\"\" and stating they don't have enough money to pay their creditors). On a credit report, accounts will generally be updated to show “included in bankruptcy\"\" or similar. Debt that is determined to still be owed often will be reduced in amount/payments. Time-barred Debts Time-barred debts are debts that are still owed, but cannot be collected through direct legal action (suing). Each state has its own statute of limitations on how long different types of debt can be collected by suing after initial default before being considered time-barred. This period is typically 3-6 years but a few states such as Kentucky allow much longer time periods (up to 15 years). Being a time-barred debt does NOT prevent a collector from contacting someone about a debt. Collectors can still try to collect a debt forever -- and probably will -- but they can't normally sue and collect payment once the statute of limitations period has passed. There are gotchas with time-barred debts regarding collection, however, which can make them still legally actionable. Making any payment, no matter how small, making a verbal commitment to pay or even acknowledging the time-barred debt is often enough to make the debt legally collectable, even if it would normally be past the statute of limitations for collection. This is again state-dependent, but it is a pitfall for many people. The process of making a debt collectable again is often called \"\"re-aging\"\". Re-aging essentially means the clock starts anew on the statute of limitations, extending the time that a creditor may use the courts to collect that debt. If someone is taken to court over a time-barred debt that is legally noncollectable (has not been legally re-aged), nothing happens to them. However, being time-barred does not prevent legal action in the sense that you still have to prove the debt is time-barred and noncollectable in court if your sued over it. Being time-barred does not mean the debt \"\"dissolves\"\". A debt is always owed unless the debt has been forgiven or discharged in bankruptcy court. This means that, combined with the ability of debt collectors to contact someone about out of statute debt and the pitfalls of re-aging, it is entirely possible for a debt collector to get a 20 year old debt actionable again. Also note that while someone is trying to dodge a debt to make it time-barred (e.g. by not paying anything), creditors and debt collectors can still take legal action to sue over the debt, and if they get a judgment against someone, this can extend the debt indefinitely. Judgements will eventually lapse, but often only after 10 years or more, and many states allow dormant judgements to be \"\"revived\"\" within that time period. Credit Reports Regarding credit reports, whether someone owes a debt and whether it appears on a credit report are two separate things. As previously stated, no debt \"\"dissolves\"\" or goes away unless some sort of legal action makes it so. As far as reporting is concerned, however, most \"\"bad\"\" credit stops being reported after seven years (by federal law). That is, accounts on a credit report will be deleted seven years from the original delinquency dates of the accounts regardless of being included in bankruptcy or as time-barred debt. This assumes no legal process allows the account to continue being reported (as is often the case with re-aging). As an FYI, a bankruptcy discharge date has nothing to do with when account information will be removed from your credit report. Note that some debts, such as tax liens, can be reported indefinitely. Should bankruptcy be considered? The decision to do bankruptcy is mostly a matter of how severe the debt is. If it is an extremely large amount and assets are very small, bankruptcy is a good route in so far as it will legally take care of a lot of loose ends and likely relieve most or all of the burden of actually owing the money. Credit-wise, 10 years is the maximum a bankruptcy (specifically) will appear on a credit report. Accounts may drop off a credit report before bankruptcy because they are past the seven years they can be legally reported. Debts owed to the state such as child support, student loans, income tax, etc. generally cannot be written off and aren't subject normal debt statute of limitations on collection. Finally, bad credit is bad credit -- there is likely to be little difference in terms of ability to get loans between bankruptcy and attempting to dodge legal action to make debts time-barred. If the debt is significant, bankruptcy may be the only sensible option.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1c688dafd3e05264c49cdd68c65874d",
"text": "\"These agencies consolidate your debt and make it an easy monthly instalment for you. They also try to negotiate with credit cards. They do so for a fee. Other option is to not pay the debt. During this time , expect credit cards to keep sending you bills and reminders and ways to contact you. Once it is not paid for a significant amount of time ( 18 months ) , the lender will \"\"sell\"\" your debt to a collection agency. You will start getting bills from collection agencies. Collection agencies can settle for up to 40 % of the actual debt. So if you had 5 credit cards , you would have 5 different collection agencies trying to get in touch with you. You can call them and tell them that you cannot pay the full amount. They will offer you settlements which you can accept or decline. The longer the unpaid debt , the more the discount they will offer. One very important thing to remember is that the unpaid amount will be sent to you on a 1099-c form . This means you have to recognize this as income. It is applicable to the year when the debt is settled. In a nut shell , you owe 120,000. You don't pay. Credit cards keeps calling you. You don't pay. After 12-18 months , they handover your debt to collection agencies. Collection agencies will try to get in touch with you. Send you lawsuit letters. You call and settle for say 50,000. You pay off 50,000 in 2016. Your debt is settled. But wait you will get 1099-C forms from different agencies totaling 70,000 ( unpaid debt ). You will have to declare that as income and you will owe tax on that. Assuming say 30 % tax you will have to pay up 21,000 as tax to IRS assuming no other income for simplicity. SO what you did was pay up 50 + 21 = 71,000 and settled the debt of 120,000. Your credit score will be much better than if you never paid at all.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a5ef1ce3e1b9adcf43a4ea4e8678c06a
|
At what point do index funds become unreliable?
|
[
{
"docid": "54d8c9482978200445c2f0e391f4b6af",
"text": "\"A great deal of analysis on this question relies on misunderstandings of the market or noticing trends that happened at the same time but were not caused by each other. Without knowing your view, I'll just give the basic idea. The amount of active management is self-correcting. The reason people have moved out of actively managed funds is that the funds have not been performing well. Their objective is to beat their benchmarks by profiting as they correct mispricing. They are performing poorly because there is too much money chasing too few mispricings. That is why the actively managed industry is shrinking. If it gets small enough, presumably those opportunities will become more abundant and mispricing correction will become more profitable. Then money will flow back into active funds. Relevant active management may not be what a lay person is thinking of. At the retail level, we are observing a shift to passive funds, but there is still plenty of money in other places. For example, pension and endowment funds normally have an objective of beating a market benchmark like the Russell 3000. As a result they are constantly trying to find opportunities to invest in active management that really can outperform. They represent a great deal of money and are nothing like the \"\"buy and forget\"\" stereotype we sometimes imagine. Moreover, hedge funds and propreitary trading shops explicitly and solely try to correct mispricings. They represent a very, very large bucket of money that is not shrinking. Active retail mutual funds and individual investors are not as relevant for pricing as we might think. More trading volume is not necessarily a good thing, nor is it the measure of market quality. One argument against passive funds is that passive funds don't trade much. Yet the volume of trading in the markets has risen dramatically over time as a result of technological improvements (algorithmic traders, mostly). They have out-competed certain market makers who used to make money on inefficiencies of the market. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, prices are more efficient now and it appears that these computers are more responsive to price-relevant information than people used to be. So even if trading volume does decrease, I see no reason to worry that prices will become less efficient. That's not the direction things have gone, even as passive investing has boomed. Overall, worries about passive investing rely on an assumption that there is not enough interest in and resources for making arbitrage profits to keep prices efficient. This is highly counterfactual and always will be. As long as people and institutions want money and have access to the markets, there will be plenty of resources allocated to price correction.\"",
"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": "e54e0f1c7850927cf99c179d785dde21",
"text": "\"As more actively managed funds are driven out of the market, the pricing of individual stocks should become less rational. I.e. more stocks will become underpriced relative to their peers. As stock prices become less rational, the reward for active investing will increase, since it will become easier to \"\"pick a winner\"\". Eventually, the market will reach a new equilibrium where only active investors who are good enough to turn a profit will remain. Even then, passive investment will still do roughly as well as \"\"the market\"\" since it has low overhead and minimal investment lag. There is no reason to expect the system to collapse, since it is characterized primarily by negative feedback loops rather than positive feedback. The last few decades have seen a shift from active to passive investment because increased market transparency and efficiency have reduced the labor required to keep pricing rational. Basically, as people have gotten better at predicting stock performance, less active investment has been required to keep prices rational.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e683e94cf2644484ac1676cade3c202",
"text": "\"private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment. This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this \"\"index ETF parasitism\"\" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue. Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25ecfa8f3c795681212ee83de19234fc",
"text": "Private investors as mutual funds are a minority of the market. Institutional investors make up a substantial portion of the long term holdings. These include pension funds, insurance companies, and even corporations managing their money, as well as individuals rich enough to actively manage their own investments. From Business Insider, with some aggregation: Numbers don't add to 100% because of rounding. Also, I pulled insurance out of household because it's not household managed. Another source is the Tax Policy Center, which shows that about 50% of corporate stock is owned by individuals (25%) and individually managed retirement accounts (25%). Another issue is that household can be a bit confusing. While some of these may be people choosing stocks and investing their money, this also includes Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) and company founders. For example, Jeff Bezos owns about 17% of Amazon.com according to Wikipedia. That would show up under household even though that is not an investment account. Jeff Bezos is not going to sell his company and buy equity in an index fund. Anyway, the most generous description puts individuals as controlling about half of all stocks. Even if they switched all of that to index funds, the other half of stocks are still owned by others. In particular, about 26% is owned by institutional investors that actively manage their portfolios. In addition, day traders buy and sell stocks on a daily basis, not appearing in these numbers. Both active institutional investors and day traders would hop on misvalued stocks, either shorting the overvalued or buying the undervalued. It doesn't take that much of the market to control prices, so long as it is the active trading market. The passive market doesn't make frequent trades. They usually only need to buy or sell as money is invested or withdrawn. So while they dominate the ownership stake numbers, they are much lower on the trading volume numbers. TL;DR: there is more than enough active investment by organizations or individuals who would not switch to index funds to offset those that do. Unless that changes, this is not a big issue.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1f844c3721d14b0eb0bbbb2963e0852d",
"text": "I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases. Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon. Source",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e16bf72b7e84e7aac3a2eb57a804450",
"text": "\"This falls under value investing, and value investing has only recently picked up study by academia, say, at the turn of the millennium; therefore, there isn't much rigorous on value investing in academia, but it has started. However, we can describe valuations: In short, valuations are randomly distributed in a log-Variance Gamma fashion with some reason & nonsense mixed in. You can check for yourself on finviz. You can basically download the entire US market and then some, with many financial and technical characteristics all in one spreadsheet. Re Fisher: He was tied for the best monetary economist of the 20th century and created the best price index, but as for stocks, he said this famous quote 12 days before the 1929 crash: \"\"Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.\"\" - Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929 EDIT Value investing has almost always been ignored by academia. Irving Fisher and other proponents of it before it was codified by Graham in the mid 20th century certainly didn't help with comments like the above. It was almost always believed that it was a sucker's game, \"\"the bigger sucker\"\" game to be more precise because value investors get destroyed during recession/collapses. So even though a recessionless economy would allow value investors and everyone never to suffer spontaneous collapses, value investors are looked down upon by academia because of the inevitable yet nearly always transitory collapse. This expresses that sentiment perfectly. It didn't help that Benjamin Graham didn't care about money so never reached the heights of Buffett who frequently alternates with Bill Gates as the richest person on the planet. Buffett has given much credibility, and academia finally caught on around in 2000 or so after he was proven right about a pending tech collapse that nearly no one believed would happen; at least, that's where I begin seeing papers being published delving into value concepts. If one looks harder, academia's even taken the torch and discovered some very useful tools. Yes, investment firms and fellow value investors kept up the information publishing, but they are not academics. The days of professors throwing darts at the stock listings and beating active managers despite most active managers losing to the market anyways really held back this side of academia until Buffett entered the fray and embarrassed them all with his club's performance, culminating in the Superinvestors article which is still relatively ignored. Before that, it was the obsession with beta, the ratio of a security's variance to its covariance to the market, a now abandoned theory because it has been utterly discredited; the popularizers of beta have humorously embraced the P/B, not giving the satisfaction to Buffet by spurning the P/E. Tiny technology firms receive ridiculous valuations because a long-surviving tiny tech firm usually doesn't stay small for long thus will grow at huge rates. This is why any solvent and many insolvent tech firms receive large valuations: risk-adjusted, they should pay out huge on average. Still, most fall by the wayside dead, and those 100 P/S valuations quickly crumble. Valuations are influenced by growth. One can see this expressed more easily with a growing perpetuity: Where P is price, i is income, r is the rate of return, and g is the growth rate of i. Rearranging, r looks like: Here, one can see that a higher P relative to i will dull the expected rate of return while a higher g will boost it. It's fun for us value investor/traders to say that the market is totally inefficient. That's a stretch. It's not perfectly inefficient, but it's efficient. Valuations are clustered very tightly around the median, but there are mistakes that even us little guys can exploit and teach the smart money a lesson or two. If one were to look at a distribution of rs, one'd see that they're even more tightly packed. So while it looks like P/Es are all over the place industry to industry, rs are much more well clustered. Tech, finance, and discretionaries frequently have higher growth rates so higher P/Es yet average rs. Utilities and non-discretionaries have lower growth rates so lower P/Es yet average rs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ff85e09a474f0d9e101faea6f81b394",
"text": "If you throw up a 20 year chart on the 10 year you can see it isn't fluctuating around 2%. It happens to be at 2% now but it has been relentlessly driving lower for at least 20 years. My own personal biased opinion is that it is a market infested with ultra-wealthy people who aren't looking for returns. They just basically want to maintain what they already sucked out of the system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fe88507bbc13e2adef09b375816123b",
"text": "\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"",
"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": "247dfb2dc3b33e6a52abd129f07abd93",
"text": "The volatility of an index fund should usually be a lot lower than that of an individual stock. However even with a broad index fund you should consider the fact that being down by 10% in the time frame you refer to is quite possible! So is being up by 10% of course. A corporate bond might be a better choice if you can find one you trust.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37fe0e231579670b8da116d8a164aff4",
"text": "great example of levered tracking error is any 2x/3x VIX etf. during periods of high volatility (like last week) you will be able to realize much higher returns on the underlying index as the levered and inverse ETFs are unable to replicate their intended performance using market securities. it is not uncommon to see the VIX up ~30% with levered ETFs only netting ~10-12% as opposed to the intended 60 or 90%, for example",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bae2ad702ebc1440fa3a7f006e568fe8",
"text": "\"The problem with the proposed plan is the word \"\"inevitable\"\". There is no such thing as a recovery that is guaranteed (though we may wish it to be so), and even if there was there is no telling how long it will take for a recovery to occur to a sufficient degree. There are also no foolproof ways to determine when you have hit the bottom. For historical examples, consider the Nikkei. In 2000 the value fell from 20000 to 15000 in a single year. Had you bought then, you would have found the market still fell and didn't get back to 15k until 2005...where it went up and down for years, when in 2008 it fell again and would not get back to that level again until 2014. Lest you think this was an isolated international incident, the same issues happened to the S&P in 2002, where things went up until they fell even lower in 2009 before finally climbing again. Will there be another recession at some point? Surely. Will there be a single, double, or triple dip, and at what point is the true bottom - and will it take 5, 10, or 20+ years for things to get back above when you bought? No one really knows, and we can only guess. So if you want to double down after a recession, you can, but it's important you not fool yourself into thinking you aren't greatly increasing your risk exposure, because you are.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f721f620e679c516aabc50115b8c3d77",
"text": "If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c2dde5217bba8832a2d722576b1c794",
"text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d9810fb83e7253b932c4b16a16d9e55",
"text": "\"Yes, many hedge funds (for example) did not survive 2008-2009. But hedge funds were failing both before and after that period, and other hedge funds thrived. Those types of funds are particularly risky because they depend so much on leverage (i.e. on money that isn't actually theirs). More publically-visible funds (like those of the big-name index fund companies) tended not to close because they are not leveraged. You say that \"\"a great many companies\"\" failed during the recession, but that's not actually true. I can't think of more than a handful of publically-traded companies that went bankrupt. So, since the vast majority of publically-traded companies stayed in business, their stocks kept some/most of their value, and the funds that owned those stocks stayed afloat. I personally did not see a single index fund that went out of business due to the recession.\"",
"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": "6241d19ae4f4a34d2000f940bf82e549",
"text": "The issue is the time frame. With a one year investment horizon the only way for a fund manager to be confident that they are not going to lose their shirt is to invest your money in ultra conservative low volatility investments. Otherwise a year like 2008 in the US stock market would break them. Note if you are willing to expand your payback time period to multiple years then you are essentially looking at an annuity and it's market loss rider. Of course those contacts are always structured such that the insurance company is extremely confident that they will be able to make more in the market than they are promising to pay back (multiple decade time horizons).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7129104fb2ab770f186c5882f2e6074c",
"text": "\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88df300e6b133556974c6289f78c352f",
"text": "The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e96f68a42cb149716460e4f0894a1aaa
|
Should I finance a new home theater at 0% even though I have the cash for it?
|
[
{
"docid": "b04cf8e1ff7f2441173d8a4de3017461",
"text": "\"Be very careful with this. When we tried this with furniture, they charged an \"\"administrative\"\" fee to setup the account. I believe it was about $75. So if you defer interest for one year on a $1000 purchase and pay a $75 administrative fee, it's 7.5% interest. Also, they don't always send you a bill when it's due, they just let you go over the date when you could have paid it without paying interest, and then you owe interest from the date of purchase. These plans are slimy. Be careful.\"",
"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": "a7523c0c096626ffb0b416e5d7207a48",
"text": "Debt creates risk. The more debt you take on, the higher your risk. What happens if you lose your job, miss a payment, or forget to write the final payment check for the exact amount needed, and are left with a balance of $1 (meaning the back-dated interest would be applied)? There is too much risk for little reward? If you paid monthly at 0% and put your money in your savings account like you mentioned, how much interest would you really accrue? Probably not much, since savings account rates suck right now. If you can pay cash for it now, do it. So pay cash now and own it outright. Why prolong it? Is there something looming in the future that you think will require your money? If so, I would put off the purchase. No one can predict the future. Why not pay cash for it now, and pay yourself what would have been the monthly payment? In three years, you have your money back. And there is no risk at all. Also, when making large purchases with cash, you can sometimes get better discounts if you ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7891742e951e44da311b3790f34793ac",
"text": "\"You should look at the opportunity cost for your money (i.e. what kind of return it could generate otherwise). We took advantage of these types of offer (zero interest for x months) in the past with the goal to redirect the money to the mortgage (it was 7.5% back then) and we made sure we don't get hosed by the surprisingly high interest rate by having a big reminder in the bulletin board in the kitchen to make sure we pay off the money before the interest rate kicks in. So we basically reduced our interest on the mortgage during that period. Oh - we use an all-in-one account (Manulife One) so that was real nice. I would stay away from those \"\"interest-deferred\"\" offers - it's totally not worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41fdc304172ec2f72ca589e47eb4acf4",
"text": "I think most people have already answered this one pretty well. (It's usually worth it, as long as you pay it off before the interest kicks in, and you don't get hit with any fees.) I just wanted to add one thing that no one else has pointed out: Applying for the loan usually counts as a hard pull on your credit history. It also changes your Debt-to-income ratio (DTI). This can negatively impact your credit score. Usually, the credit score impact for these (relatively) small loans isn't that much. And your score will rebound over time. However, if it makes your score drop below a certain threshold, (e.g. FICO dips below 700), it could trip you up if you are also applying for other sources of credit in the immediate future. Not a big deal, but it is something to keep in mind.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d443125db4c2e83b1348b20603f284f",
"text": "I have abused 0% interest programs time and time again, but only because my wife and I are assiduous about paying our bills on time. We've mostly taken advantage of it with bigger purchases that we've done through Lowe's or Home Depot (eg - washing machines, carpeting, stove, fridge), but its been well worth it. There are two rules that we set for ourselves whenever we do a 0% interest program -- 1) We have the money already in savings so that we can easily pay it off at any time 2) We agree to pay our monthly bill on time There's nothing quite like using another person's money to buy your things, while keeping your money to gain interest in a savings account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "970074e19cac1c9a7b1f4c54d07b115c",
"text": "You know what? Pay cash, but ask for a discount. And something fairly hefty. Don't be afraid to bargain. The discount will be worth more than the interest you'd get on the same amount of money. And if the salesman doesn't give you a decent discount, ask to speak to the manager. And if that doesn't work, try another store. Good luck with it!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc8424217a86294ba50e8a485dea0f79",
"text": "\"Pay cash. You have the cash to pay for it now, but God forbid something happen to you or your wife that requires you to dip into that cash in the future. In such an event, you could end up paying a lot more for your home theater than you planned. The best way to keep your consumer credit card debt at zero (and protect your already-excellent credit) is to not add to the number of credit cards you already have. At least in the U.S., interest rates on saving accounts of any sort are so low, I don't think it's worthwhile to include as a deciding factor in whether not you \"\"borrow\"\" at 0% instead of buying in cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45a2171ad40bfae8c434faf68c330c3b",
"text": "I won't repeat what's already been said, but I agree that it's a good move to take advantage of the free financing so long as you read the fine print carefully, keep the money designated to pay off this debt and not use it for anything else, and make sure to pay it off before you get smacked with some bad interest. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that this kind of offer can help build credit. You mentioned that you already have excellent credit, but for someone who has good credit, this could be an account that, if used carefully, could give their credit a boost by adding to their history of on-time payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "072ab5a8527fb892849afb4c791d89f7",
"text": "\"If you do it, be sure to read what you sign. They'll sign you up on some type of \"\"credit insurance\"\" and not tell you about it. It costs like $10 a month. If you don't sign up for that, you should be fine. I bought my HDTV this way, though I wish I would have saved and paid up front. I'm moving more towards the \"\"cash only\"\" mindset.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "970b5d548b673f4ad36ee20744f1f246",
"text": "I bought a Thinkpad in Dec 2007 using BillMeLater, which was working with IBM/Lenovo at that time. I was getting the notebook at the lowest price available, from the manufacturer. I had the money to pay for it -- around $1400. But I went ahead and took the offer from BillMeLater. It was essentially a 12-month zero-interest credit card balance transfer loan. Sketchy bit its very nature. They spammed my inbox with solicitations, which was annoying. But I set my bank to pay the monthly amount (or slightly over, since it decreases each month) and to make the final payoff -- all at the time of purchase. This worked just fine -- but I still had spam from BillMeLater for quite a while. I still ran a slight risk that something would go wrong, at which point I'd face interest charges -- but I would then have paid off the item plus those interest charges. Luckily I avoided that. I'm not sure I'd bother doing this again, but if the sticker price was high enough, I might be tempted....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4587dc621c938b566c4374e77c0e9888",
"text": "Zero percent interest may sound great, but those deals often have extra margin built into the price to make up for it. If you see 0%, find it cheaper somewhere else and avoid the cloud over your head.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0e8debfc203f22a12d590298baf6ce5",
"text": "I would never consider such an offer. As has already been mentioned, there are likely to be hidden costs and the future is never certain. If you feel that you are missing out, then negociate a lower purchase price now. People often forget that something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. With any significant purchase it's always worth bargaining.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7bea73bdc586c06b219ff1563f511dc",
"text": "Read the fine print and you will be fine. The big caveat is that if you miss a payment for any reason, you will be in default as far as the promotional financing is concerned and will typically owe ALL of the accrued interest, which is usually computed at 20-25% per year. Personally, I use these sorts of offers all of the time at places like Home Depot for stuff that doesn't generally need warranty service. (Wood, tools, etc) Usually I pay the thing off over time as CDs mature. If I'm buying a TV, computer, etc. I always use my AMEX, because I get an extra year of warranty service and points for free.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "12262c326568149698533a3c185be27c",
"text": "If a shop offers 0% interest for purchase, someone is paying for it. e.g., If you buy a $X item at 0% interest for 12 months, you should be able to negotiate a lower cash price for that purchase. If the store is paying 3% to the lender, then techincally, you should be able to bring the price down by at least 2% to 3% if you pay cash upfront. I'm not sure how it works in other countries or other purchases, but I negotiated my car purchase for the dealer's low interest rate deal, and then re-negotiated with my preapproved loan. Saved a good chunk on that final price!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f582e0ac48d6814598329f1322f4530",
"text": "I'm going to be buying a house / car / home theater system in the next few months, and this loan would show up on my credit report and negatively impact my score, making me unable to get the financing that I'll need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "990df5d54f35fc76dac95ac6c32c752c",
"text": "\"Another problem with this plan (assuming you get past Rocky's answer somehow) is that you assume that $50K in construction costs will translate to $50K in increased value. That's not always true; the ROI on home improvements is usually a lot less than 100%. You'd also owe more property taxes on your improvements, which would cut into your plan somewhat. But you also can't keep doing this forever. Soon enough, you'd run out of physical and/or legal space to keep adding additions to the house (zoning tends to limit how much you can build, unless you're in the middle of nowhere, and eventually you'd fill the lot), even if you did manage to keep obtaining more and more loans. And you'd quickly reach the point of diminishing returns on your expansions. Many homebuyers might be prepared to pay more for a third or fourth bedroom, but vanishingly few in most markets will pay substantially more for a second billiards room or a third home theater. At some point, your house isn't a mansion, it's \"\"that ridiculous castle\"\" only an eccentric would want, and the pool of potential buyers (and the price they'll pay for it) diminishes. And the lender, not being stupid, isn't going to go on financing your creation of a monstrosity, because they are the ones who will be stuck with the place if you default.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd508c9d6eff76049f2b5331cef55715",
"text": "Two cases: You take the credit and reinvest the cash equivalent (be it a savings account or otherwise), yielding you the x% at virtually zero risk. Unless of course you consider possibility of your own negligence a risk (in case of missed payments, etc.). You pay by cash and have the peace of mind at the cost of that x%. The ultimate decision depends on which you value more - the $ you get from x%, or the peace of mind.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e042485852dc24651d7e8ebc3a6289e4",
"text": "\"Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, \"\"ugh\"\") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d917c533e1f467fdc043cc786853554",
"text": "The ROI percentage becomes a meaningless figure at that point and would either be infinite or a very large number if you assume an equity investment of $1 or $0.01. At that point it's obviously a lucrative deal *as long as it works out* so the bigger question is what are the risks of it not working out and what's the ROIC.",
"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": "9360d30fe1116cbfbd238ffdb702853f",
"text": "\"When you refinance, there is cost (guess: around $2000-$3000) to cover lawyers, paperwork, surveys, deed insurance, etc. etc. etc. Someone has to pay that cost, and in the end it will be you. Even if you get a \"\"no points no cost\"\" loan, the cost is going to be hidden in the interest rate. That's the way transactions with knowledgeable companies works: they do business because they benefit (profit) from it. The expectation is that what they need is different from what you need, so that each of you benefits. But, when it's a primarily cash transaction, you can't both end up with more money. So, unless value will be created somewhere else from the process (and don't include the +cash, because that ends up tacked onto the principle), this seems like paying for financial entertainment, and there are better ways to do that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0a0b558d1730cc0be2b281a12672cb0",
"text": "Don't pay off the 0% loan. First, set up an automatic monthly payment to ensure you never miss the payment (which could lower your credit score). If you are in Canada, depending on your situation: If you are employed and make more than $50k/year:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37eefec0f97bf0090dbd8ec66afcbf52",
"text": "\"A bank may not like loaning money to you for this. That is one snag. You listed 500,000-600,000$ for a monster of a house (3000 sqft is over three times the average size of homes a hundred years ago). Add in the price of the land at 60K (600K divided ten ways). Where I live, there is a 15% VAT tax on new homes. I can't find out if California imposes a VAT tax on new homes. Anyway, returning back to the topic, because of the risk of loaning you 660K for a piece of land and construction, the bank may only let you borrow half or less of the final expected cost (not value). Another huge snag is that you say in a comment to quid \"\"I came up with this conclusion after talking to someone who had his property built in early 2000s in bay area for that average price\"\". Let's apply 3% inflation over 15 years to that number of 200$/sqft. That brings the range for construction costs to 780K-930K. Even at 2% inflation 670K-810K. Edit: OP later expanded the question making it an inquiry on why people don't collaborate to buy a plot of land and build their homes. \"\"Back in the day\"\" this wasn't all that atypical! For example, my pastor's parents did just this when he was a young lad. Apart from the individual issues mentioned above, there are sociological challenges that arrive. Examples: These are the easy questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2afc463c2de196296f20f632d9d0fe12",
"text": "If you're getting 0% on the financing, it's not costing you anything to borrow that money. So its basically free money. If you are comfortable with the monthly payments, consider going with no downpayment at all. Keep that money aside for a rainy day, or invest it somewhere so that you get some return on it. If you need to lower the payments later you can always use that money to pay down part of the loan later (check with the dealer that it is an open loan). If you're not comfortable with the payments at 0 down, put enough down to bring the monthly payment to a level where you are comfortable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "086c40bd3fcff9179d9481f38223059b",
"text": "The crucial question not addressed by other answers is your ability to repay the debt. Borrowing is always about leverage, and leverage is always about risk. In the home improvement loan case, default comes with dire consequences-- to extinguish the debt you might have to sell your home. With a stable job, reliable income, and sufficient cash flow (and, of course, comfort that the project will yield benefits you're happy to pay for), then the clear answer is, go ahead and borrow. But if you work in a highly cyclical industry, have very little cash saved, or for whatever other reason are uncertain about your future ability to pay, then don't borrow. Save until you are more comfortable you can handle the loan. That doesn't necessarily mean save ALL the money; just save enough that you are highly confident in your ability to pay whatever you borrow.",
"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": "eeac29631c2021c0a70d03a09c16d73b",
"text": "Most 0% interest loans have quite high interest rates that are deferred. If you are late on a payment you are hit with all the deferred interest. They're banking on a percentage of customers missing a payment. Also, this is popular in furniture/car sales because it's a way to get people to buy who otherwise wouldn't, they made money on the item sale, so the loan doesn't have to earn them money (even though some will). Traditional banks/lenders do make money from interest and rely on that, they would have to rely on fees if interest were not permitted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "454af89ce64a4b4e0a6d5a9c8c1f8ea5",
"text": "\"I'd put more money down and avoid financing. I personally don't think car debt is good debt and if you can't afford the car, you are better off with a cheaper car. Also, you should read up on the 0% offer before deciding to commit. Here's one article that is slightly dated, but discusses some pros and cons of 0% financing. My main point though is that 0% financing is not \"\"free\"\" and you need to consider the cost of that financing before making the purchase. Aside from the normal loan costs of having a monthly payment, possibly buying too much car by looking at monthly cost, etc., a 0% financing offer usually forces you to give the dealer/financing company any rebates that are due to you, in essence making the car cost more.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ff723f038a133bdac0e0d0475fff1c1b
|
Trading : how to deal with crashes (small or big)
|
[
{
"docid": "32d1ae25d45bff448b385f3f172f87f3",
"text": "caveat: remember that complex derivatives can be very bad for your wealth (even if you FULLY understand them).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37da0eeb598dc54990f72a3f4987723c",
"text": "You can buy out of the money put options that could minimize your losses (or even make you money) in the event of a huge crash. Put options are good in that you dont have to worry about not getting filled, or not knowing what price you might get filled with a stop-loss order, however, put options cost money and their value decays over time. It's just like buying insurance, you always have to pay up for it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7a75b535aa087132d36f9dd54f4abc64",
"text": "I understand the question, I think. The tough thing is that trades over the next brief time are random, or appear so. So, just as when a stock is $10.00 bid / $10.05 ask, if you place an order below the ask, a tick down in price may get you a fill, or if the next trades are flat to higher, you might see the close at $10.50, and no fill as it never went down to your limit. This process is no different for options than for stocks. When I want to trade options, I make sure the strike has decent volume, and enter a market order. Edit - I reworded a bit to clarify. The Black–Scholes is a model, not a rigid equation. Say I discover an option that's underpriced, but it trades under right until it expires. It's not like there's a reversion to the mean that will occur. There are some very sophisticated traders who use these tools to trade in some very high volumes, for them, it may produce results. For the small trader you need to know why you want to buy a stock or its option and not worry about the last $0.25 of its price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89940e315a6cc1493916b85e348e62eb",
"text": "In my experience thanks to algorithmic trading the variation of the spread and the range of trading straight after a major data release will be as random as possible, since we live in an age that if some pattern existed at these times HFT firms would take out any opportunity within nanoseconds. Remember that some firms write algorithms to predict other algorithms, and it is at times like those that this strategy would be most effective. With regards to my own trading experience I have seen orders fill almost €400 per contract outside of the quoted range, but this is only in the most volatile market conditions. Generally speaking, event investing around numbers like these are only for top wall street firms that can use co-location servers and get a ping time to the exchange of less than 5ms. Also, after a data release the market can surge/plummet in either direction, only to recover almost instantly and take out any stops that were in its path. So generally, I would say that slippage is extremely unpredictable in these cases( because it is an advantage to HFT firms to make it so ) and stop-loss orders will only provide limited protection. There is stop-limit orders( which allow you to specify a price limit that is acceptable ) on some markets and as far as I know InteractiveBrokers provide a guaranteed stop-loss fill( For a price of course ) that could be worth looking at, personally I dont use IB. I hope this answer provides some helpful information, and generally speaking, super-short term investing is for algorithms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57cc72325f692606cefed8455ea59b62",
"text": "You will lose out on your spread, you always pay a spread. Also, if you are looking at a strategy for using stop losses, try taking into account the support lines if you are going long. So, if the stock is on an upward trend but is dropping back from profit taking, your best best is to take a position closest to the next support line. You place your stop just below the support. this will give you the best chance of a winning position as most technical analysts will have looking towards the support as a buy back area. Obviously, in a bear market the opposite is true. If you have taken your position and the market move past the first resistance line, then bring your stop to just below that line as once resistance is broken, it then becomes support. You then have a profitable position with profit locked in. Leave the position to break the next resistance and repeat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e92639dfe3b96ba834caa1456ea2c9d2",
"text": "Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2348440127403f34ce321c38c6318907",
"text": "What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time.",
"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": "ee2c4b844bf6867deea08781a2c05ee9",
"text": "\"Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student. Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going. I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations. I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost. You are not misusing your money by \"\"not doing anything with it\"\". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino. Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "8b35c5e8c84e7c3a09681cbaa08b71d2",
"text": "Buy low, sell high. I think a lot of people apply that advice wrongly. Instead of using this as advice about when to buy and when to sell, you should use it as advice about when not to buy and when not to sell. Don't buy when P/Es cannot support the current stock price. Don't sell when stocks have already fallen due to a market panic. Don't follow the herd or you will get trampled when they reverse direction in a panic. If you are smart enough to sell ahead of the panics, more power to you, but you should be using more than a 52-week high on a graph to make that decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91c79dcdf2c298131d02119744c2cdb1",
"text": "While trading in stochastic I've understood, one needs reference (SMA/EMA/Bolinger Band and even RSI) to verify trade prior entering it. Stochastic is nothing to do with price or volume it is about speed. Adjusting K% has ability to turn you from Day trader to -> swing trader to -> long term investor. So you adjust your k% according to chart time-frame. Stochastic setup for 1 min, 5 min ,15, 30, 60 min, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, half yearly and yearly are all different. If you try hopping from one time-frame to another just because it is below oversold or above overbought region with same K%, you may get confused. Worst you may not square-off your loss making trade. And rather not use excel; charts gives better visual for oscillators.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dd61f4b88dc34661b578a4696c6a5b5",
"text": "\"After learning about things that happened in the \"\"flash crash\"\" I always use limit orders. In an extremely rare instance if you place a market order when there is a some glitch, for example some large trader adds a zero at the end of their volume, you could get an awful price. If I want to buy at the market price, I just set the limit about 1% above the market price. If I want to sell, I set the limit 1% below the market price. I should point out that your trade is not executed at the limit price. If your limit price on a buy order is higher than the lowest offer, you still get filled at the lowest offer. If before your order is submitted someone fills all offers up to your limit price, you will get your limit price. If someone, perhaps by accident, fills all orders up to twice your limit price, you won't end up making the purchase. I have executed many purchases this way and never been filled at my limit price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54b2d8e307104d0ed9651537bd06468e",
"text": "A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks. That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters). Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight. A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions. One of my favorite plays back in 2008-2011 was First Solar on the run-up to earnings calls. Analysts would always come out of these meetings downgrading the stock and the forums were full of pikers and pumpers claiming heavy put positions. The stock would go down considerably, but would always pop around earnings. I've made huge returns on this move. Those were the good ole days. Start off just googling financial news and blogs and look for lawsuits and/or scandals. Manufacturing defects or recalls. Starting looking for companies that react predictably to certain events. Plot those events on your chart. If you don't know how to back-test events, learn it. Google Finance had a tool for that back in the day that was rudimentary but helpful for those starting out. Eventually though, moreso than learning any particular strategy, you should learn these three skills: 1) Tooling: to gather, manipulate, and visualize data on your own. These days automated trading also seems to be ever more important, even for the small fish. 2) Analytical Thinking learn to spot patterns of the three types: event based (lawsuits, arbitrage, earnings etc), technical (emas, price action, sup/res), or business-oriented (accounting, strategy, marketing). Don't just listen to what someone else says you should do at any particular moment, critical thinking is essential. 3) Emotions and Attitude: learn how to comprehend risk and manage your trigger finger. Your emotions are like a blade that you must sharpen every day if you want to stay in the game. Disclaimer: I stopped using this strategy in 2011, and moved to a pure technical trading regime. I've been out totally out of the game since 2015.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17edca9b7ce5c1b6974f3149f10e70ad",
"text": "It was a forex account (foreign exchange trading). At that time forex brokers were not regulated or required to be regulated so it was like the wild west. It was indeed a learning experience and thankfully I was diversified so the hit hurt but did not ruin me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed5e9ea4c94d16c474d6154a73443ab5",
"text": "Ok, so disregarding passivity, could you help me through a simplified example? Say I only had two assets, SPY and TLT, with a respective weight of 35 and 65% and I want want to leverage this to 4x. Additionally, say daily return covar is: * B/B .004% * B/S -.004% * S/S .02% Now, if I read correctly, I should buy ATM calls xxx days in the future. Which may look like: Ticker, S, K, Option Price, Delta, Lambda * TLT $126.04 $126.00 $4.35 0.50 14.5 * SPY $134.91 $134.00 $6.26 0.55 11.8 ^ This example is pretty close but some assets are far off. I feel like I'm on the wrong track so I'll stop here. I just want to lever up my risk-parity. Margin rates are too high and I'm docked by Reg-T.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3569d0d1efd08759ff7184142cfa4a06",
"text": "I would refrain from commenting on market timing strategy, but please don't park extra AUD cash in IB. Park cash in your local bank high interest savings, and get a Margin account at IB. When you want to pull the trigger, use margin loan to buy stocks immediately, then transfer cash from local bank to IB afterwards.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f2935bc1a505780711b8cba258800faf
|
Are multiple hard inquiries for a specific loan type okay?
|
[
{
"docid": "c9dc5d9adefc54650c4af8dcbc26666a",
"text": "\"Assuming I don't need any other new lines of credit, can I get pre-qualified repeatedly (and with different banks) with impunity? Yes, but only for a limited period. FICO says: Hard inquiries are inquiries where a potential lender is reviewing your credit because you've applied for credit with them. These include credit checks when you've applied for an auto loan, mortgage or credit card. Each of these types of credit checks count as a single inquiry. One exception occurs when you are \"\"rate shopping\"\". That's a smart thing to do, and your FICO score considers all inquiries within a 45 period for a mortgage, an auto loan or a student loan as a single inquiry. However for your situation, since you won't be getting a loan for several months, getting inquiries more than 45 days apart will each count as a separate inquiry.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd54039a93a99e6a45bd56d41b1e0a7",
"text": "\"tl;dr: Your best course of action is probably to do a soft pull (check your own credit) and provide that to the lender for an unofficial pre-approval to get the ball rolling. The long of it: The loan officer is mostly correct, and I have recent personal evidence that corroborates that. A few months ago I looked into refinancing a mortgage on a rental property, and I allowed 3 different lenders to do a hard inquiry within 1 week of each other. I saw all 3 inquires appear on reports from each of the 3 credit bureaus (EQ/TU/EX), but it was only counted as a single inquiry in my score factors. But as you have suggested, this breaks down when you know that you won't be purchasing right away, because then you will have multiple hard inquiries at least a few months apart which could possibly have a (minor) negative impact on your score. However minor it is, you might as well try to avoid it if you can. I have played around with the simulator on myfico.com, and have found inquiries to have the following effect on your credit score using the FICO Score 8 model: With one inquiry, your scores will adjust as such: Two inquiries: Three inquiries: Here's a helpful quote from the simulator notes: \"\"Credit inquiries remain on your credit report for 2 years, but FICO Scores only consider credit inquiries from the past 12 months.\"\" Of course, take that with a grain of salt, as myfico provides the following disclaimer: The Simulator is provided for informational purposes only and should not be expected to provide accurate predictions in all situations. Consequently, we make no promise or guarantee with regard to the Simulator. Having said all that, in your situation, if you know with certainty that you will not be purchasing right away, then I would recommend doing a soft pull to get your scores now (check your credit yourself), and see if the lender will use those numbers to estimate your pre-approval. One possible downside of this is the lender may not be able to give you an official pre-approval letter based on your soft pull. I wouldn't worry too much about that though since if you are suddenly ready to purchase you could just tell them to go ahead with the hard pull so they can furnish an official pre-approval letter. Interesting Side Note: Last month I applied for a new mortgage and my score was about 40 points lower than it was 3 months ago. At first I thought this was due to my recent refinancing of property and the credit inquiries that came along with it, but then I noticed that one of my business credit cards had recently accrued a high balance. It just so happens that this particular business CC reports to my personal credit report (most likely in error but I never bothered to do anything about it). I immediately paid that CC off in full, and checked my credit 20 days later after it had reported, and my score shot back up by over 30 points. I called my lender and instructed them to re-pull my credit (hard inquiry), which they did, and this pushed me back up into the best mortgage rate category. Yes, I purposely requested another hard pull, but it shouldn't affect my score since it was within 45 days, and that maneuver will save me thousands in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4d9a2bfbfea31ab21add6a7ef8ff322d",
"text": "Yes. You can request for additional loan and it would be given as cash. You are free to do whatever you like with it. This does not mean Bank will automatically grant you loan. They would ask you purpose, check your ability to make additional repayments, verify if the property has actually appreciated before deciding. Note this is not savings. This makes sense only if you can generate returns greater than the cost of loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fa046027244ea7e605a6975245b2bb3",
"text": "Ok, so as a result of the Equifax breach I placed a credit freeze on all my accounts. Just to verify my understanding, if in the future I want to apply for a home loan, open a new bank account, etc... I need to individually unfreeze my accounts with each of the credit companies right? (e.g. I can't just unfreeze one, I have to unfreeze them all)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "860640df9cc44d389d0eb0b7a084e461",
"text": "Wrong sub. You're looking for /r/personalfinance >will freezing just that credit report hurt them in any way? No, but it will help prevent an identity thief from wrecking your credit. >Can I still get a loan with only one of the three frozen? Depends, but yes. You should freeze your credit at all 5 credit bureaus for personal financial protections.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e39a208a9630ec7faa3de36c5cb91c16",
"text": "It depends on the loan contract if this is even possible, and also if it is the default. Banks of course prefer to use those extra payments against ‘future payments’, meaning you are giving them interest-free money upfront, to apply against your next requirement payment. That is of course very bad for you, as you do not only save no interst, but also lose the cash-flow. Most (but not all) contracts do allow prepayments, but many require you to explicitly specify that you want the extra applied against the principal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fbe50f898807147c7d5d2961fb51a67",
"text": "Well, these can range from loan broker to outright scams. It is pretty typical that loan broker just take some fee in the middle for their service of filling your applications for a bunch of real loan provider companies. Because making a web page costs nothing, a single loan broker could easily have many web pages with a bit different marketing so that they can get as many customers as possible. But of course some of the web pages can be actual scams. As soon as you provide enough information for taking out a loan, they can go to a real financial institution, take out the loan and run with the money. In most countries consumer protection laws do not apply to business-to-business transactions, so you have to be even more wary of scams than usual.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a24ff2baa6ba010eb8313a0fdd120f9",
"text": "The precise answer depends on the terms and conditions of the loan, and whether you can reasonably expect to meet them. For example, if you keep the loan, make no payments, there is a good chance that - eventually - you will trigger a clause in the contract, and suddenly be charged fees or a significant interest rate. If you don't need to pay anything for a time, odds are you will forget to monitor the loan (after all it is not costing you anything) and suddenly get hit with an unexpected expense. Most loan contracts are structured - by professionals - to benefit the loan provider. The purpose of a loan provider is to make a profit. They do that by encouraging you to pay more - up front, over the longer term, or both. Personally, I would never take out a zero-interest loan. It is specifically designed to appear like a gift from the loan provider, while actually (and almost covertly) costing more at some point. If I was in your position (i.e. if I had taken out such a loan) I'd pay off the loan as fast as possible. If you have more than one loan, however, prioritise by working out which actually costs you more over time. And pay the worst ones first. You'll have to look closely at the terms and conditions - possibly with the help of a professional - to work out which is actually work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc39ebc96f26ede3ea62f4829612c593",
"text": "\"Generally it is not recommended that you do anything potentially short-term deleterious to your credit during the process of seeking a mortgage loan - such as opening a new account, closing old accounts, running up balances, or otherwise applying for any kind of loan (people often get carried away and apply for loans to cover furniture and appliances for the new home they haven't bought yet). You are usually OK to do things that have at least a short-term positive effect, like paying down debt. But refinancing - which would require applying for a non-home loan - is exactly the sort of hard-pull that can drop your credit rating. It is not generally advised. The exception to this is would be if you have an especially unusual situation with an existing loan (like your car), that is causing a deal-breaking situation with your home loan. This would for example be having a car payment so high that it violates maximum Debt-to-Income ratios (DTI). If your monthly debt payments are more than 43% of your monthly income, for instance, you will generally be unable to obtain a \"\"qualified mortgage\"\", and over 28-36% will disqualify you from some lenders and low-cost mortgage options. The reason this is unusual is that you would have to have a bizarrely terrible existing loan, which could somehow be refinanced without increasing your debt while simultaneously providing a monthly savings so dramatic that it would shift your DTI from \"\"unacceptable\"\" to \"\"acceptable\"\". It's possible, but most simple consumer loan refis just don't give that kind of savings. In most cases you should just \"\"sit tight\"\" and avoid any new loans or refinances while you seek a home purchase. If you want to be sure, you'll need to figure out your DTI ratio (which I recommend anyway) and see where you would be before and after a car refinance. If this would produce a big swing, maybe talk with some mortgage loan professionals who are familiar with lending criteria and ask for their opinion as to whether the change would be worth it. 9 times out of 10, you should wait until after your loan is closed and the home is yours before you try to refinance your car. However I would only warn you that if you think your house + car payment is too much for you to comfortably afford, I'd strongly recommend you seriously reconsider your budget, current car ownership, and house purchasing plans. You might find that after the house purchase the car refi isn't available either, or fine print means it wouldn't provide the savings you thought it would. Don't buy now hoping an uncertain cost-saving measure will work out later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b9300c42e6ddab9c79fd61d14d4cb061",
"text": "You should also be aware that there are banks that do business in the US that do not deal with Fannie Mae, and thus are not subject to the rules about conforming loans. Here is an example of a well-known bank that lists two sets of rates, with the second being for loans of $750,000 or more (meaning the first covers everything up to that) https://home.ingdirect.com/orange-mortgage/rates",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85b29fb9f21e2f7238927cc9b7d31b6e",
"text": "If you have good credit, you already know the rate -- the bank has it posted in the window. If you don't have good credit, tell the loan officer your score. Don't have them run your credit until you know that you're interested in that bank. Running an application or prequal kicks off the sales process, which gets very annoying very quickly if you are dealing with multiple banks. A few pointers: You're looking for a plain vanilla 30 year loan, so avoid mortgage brokers -- they are just another middleman who is tacking on a cost. Brokers are great when you need more exotic loans. Always, always stay away from mortgage brokers (or inspectors or especially lawyers) recommended by realtors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40ae70712ee0d2fee4c95c13d1d2069d",
"text": "If the loan is for a car, or mortgage there is specific paperwork that is processed when the loan payments have been completed. For other types of loans ask the lender, what will they give you regarding the payoff of the loan. Keep this paperwork, in hard copy and electronic form forever.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f63a2ebb0d599a7f156513c061b8228",
"text": "\"(I'm a bit surprised that nobody talked about the impact of multiple inquiries on a loan, since OP is concerned with credit building. Probably an answer as opposed to a comment is justified.) Yes. In fact when you shop for auto loan you are expected to have your credit score/report be pulled by different banks, credit unions, and/or the financing arm of the car manufacturer or the dealership, so that you can hopefully get the best rate possible. This is especially true if the dealer is requesting quotes on rates on your behalf, as they would probably use a batch process to send out applications to multiple financial institutions all at once. Yes, and a bit unusual - CALVERT TOYO (your dealer) pulled your report twice on the same day. Presumably they are not getting any new information on the second pull. Maybe a fat finger? Regardless, you should not worry about this too much (to be explained below). I would say \"\"don't bother\"\". The idea behind hard inquiries lowering credit score is that lenders see the number of hard inquiries as your desire for credit. Too high a number is often viewed as either \"\"desperate for credit\"\" or \"\"unable to qualify for credit\"\". But as explained above, it is very common for a person to request quotes for multiple financial institutions and thus to have multiple hard inquiries in a short period of time when shopping for loans. To account for that, the credit bureau's model would usually combine hard inquiries for a same type of loan (auto, mortgage, etc.) within 30 days. Hence a person sending quote request to 3 banks won't be rated higher for credit than if he were to request quotes from 5 banks. Therefore in your case your credit profile is not going to be different if you had been pulled just once. my credit score goes down for 15 points I'm assuming you are talking about the credit score provided by Credit Karma. The score CK provided is FAKO. The score lenders care about is FICO. They are well correlated but still different. Google these two terms and you should be able to figure out the difference quickly. You can also refer to my answer to a different question here: Equifax credit score discrepancy in 1 month, why?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69785cfa56e360777df4467d5a7e57aa",
"text": "Well, if you can get a loan for 3.8% and reliably invest for 7% returns, then you should borrow as much as you possibly can - the whole employment/existing loan situation doesn't even enter into it! But as they say, if something is too good to be true, it probably isn't (true). The 7-8% return are not guaranteed at all, but the 3.8% interest is. And while we're at it, 3.8% for an unsecured loan sounds pretty damn low, I would be really doubtful about that. I mean, why would the bank do that if they could instead invest the money for 7-8%?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07f845db19bc07d657a6d7eec4503e38",
"text": "Hey, can some one explain to me the diference between a direct unsub loan, direct sub loan, and especially direct plus loan. Since I will be getting this loans for school. I would really apreciate it if anyone could help me out here. Also, Is it smart to get into about debt for an education as an architect from a private education?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5020753a623b5bf2ff5223dc20c9b78d",
"text": "In my book if it comes in the mail with official looking envelopes, language and seals to try and get you to open it, the company isn't trust worthy enough for my business. I get a pile of these for my VA loan every week, I imagine FHA loans get similar junk mail. Rates are very low at the moment so it is likely that rates from reputable lenders are 1 to 2% lower than say a year or 2 years ago. In general if a lender gives you a GFE the numbers on it are going to be pretty accurate and there isn't a great deal of wiggle room for the lender so the concerns with reputation should focus on is this outfit some type of scam and then reviews on how good or bad their customer service is. Chances of running into a scam seem pretty low but the costs could be really high. As far as checking if an unknown lender is any good it is kind of tough to do. There is a list of Lenders on HUD's site. Checking BBB can't hurt but I wouldn't put a lot of stock into their recommendations. Doing some general Google searches certainly can't hurt but aren't fool proof either. Personally I would start by checking what prevailing rates are for your current situation. You could go to your proffered bank or to any number of online sites to get a couple of quotes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a8c87831deb5f2ed4e2c73b737439993
|
Problems with Enterprise Value and better valuation techniques
|
[
{
"docid": "0a7c42f12fa6bc8050d60398fd81742d",
"text": "This is a tough question SFun28. Let's try and debug the metric. First, let's expand upon the notion share price is determined in an efficient market where prospective buyers and sellers have access to info on an enterprises' cash balance and they may weigh that into their decision making. Therefore, a desirable/undesirable cash balance may raise or lower the share price, to what extent, we do not know. We must ask How significant is cash/debt balance in determining the market price of a stock? As you noted, we have limited info, which may decrease the weight of these account balances in our decision process. Using a materiality level of 5% of net income of operations, cash/debt may be immaterial or not considered by an investor. investors oftentimes interpret the same information differently (e.g. Microsoft's large cash balance may show they no longer have innovative ideas worth investing in, or they are well positioned to acquire innovative companies, or weather a contraction in the sector) My guess is a math mind would ignore the affect of account balances on the equity portion of the enterprise value calculation because it may not be a factor, or because the affect is subjective.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "399db64a304c7fc66c5a72efd53d8696",
"text": "How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75ffcd067af42e2df03285f2b01a8697",
"text": "\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c89af4372c5a95e112336d2e3e9f3f8a",
"text": "\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f23b2797867eb8b76bf95504624c9fbc",
"text": "\"A Bloomberg terminal connected to Excel provides the value correcting splits, dividends, etc. Problem is it cost around $25,000. Another one which is free and I think that takes care of corporate action is \"\"quandl.com\"\". See an example here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8399543fe9b611cc89a88cecf78f9c74",
"text": "It's been awhile since my last finance course, so school me here: What is the market cap of a company actually supposed to represent? I get that it's the stock price X the # of shares, but what is that actually representing? Revenues? PV of all future revenues? PV of future cash flows? In any case, good write up. Valuation of tech stocks is quite the gambit, and you've done a good job of dissecting it for a layman.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a54e2f82908bea2ab9e34d7ae21e0a6",
"text": "Enterprise Value is supposed to be the price you would be willing to pay to acquire the company. Typically, companies are delivered debt-free and cash-free, so the cash on the balance sheet at the time of the transaction is distributed to the original owners. So, for instance, a company like Apple would have a lower EV than Market Value because the cash on the balance sheet is not going to be included in an acquisition. And you are right, there are plenty of instances where you see Enterprise Value lower than Market Value (Cap). If you are solely looking at equity valuation (equity investing), then use market cap. If you are looking at firm valuation for M&A, then EV is more important.",
"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": "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": "793747651d0125a3ed9bc1db898787a9",
"text": "Well, it also discusses other traditional valuation techniques such as the economic profit model and it has a chapter on real option valuation. But I would not label those exotic valuation methods. However, I would say that the CFA challenge is much about standard valuation methods due to the limited page limit and considering that there should properly also be an analysis of the external and internal environment to determine the future prospects of the given company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53c1121a7e3907d355f4a4576bd57bd1",
"text": "\"A DCF includes changes in working capital which is a source or use of cash. I also don't like your characterization of enterprise value as \"\"cashless\"\" because it's also \"\"debtless\"\". It's capital structure independent -- just like a DCF is. **That's the common theme.**\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4e062deeafc62b4582e9c0caddf0b8d",
"text": "Eh. The valuations are extrapolations based on the value of equity with liquidation rights. Which is fine: if I'm a buyer of that class, I don't really care what the value of common is; I care what the value of that class of equity is. Bloomberg tries to paint that as some conspiracy, which is ridiculous.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6658968c336af704325d6b91fde24e02",
"text": "The problem is very fundamental. Equity is traded on limit order books while fixed income is not. Meaning counterparty to counterparty, if you buy a bond off say barclays, chances are if you hit them for a price to sell it will be somewhat higher than the market as they do not want you to just take their money. Putting fixed income on a limit order book could help however there may be fundamental liquidity problems on some smaller issues.",
"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": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d",
"text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f86a8a4bb3fa8d170e7d2cb5f67b104",
"text": "Thanks for your thorough reply. Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it. So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model. That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares. I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a68e04504132a0f2f77cc815c32f537",
"text": "Ok - what's your starting point? Are you starting with equity value and then working your way back to an enterprise value? Then yes, you must subtract cash and add debt. If you're doing a DCF, you don't have to make any changes to the values at the end if you're looking for an enterprise value. If you're looking for an equity value, you would need to add cash and subtract debt. If you're simply applying a enterprise value multiple (such as EV / EBITDA) you don't need to make any changes. Just multiply the Company's EBITDA by the multiple in question. Enterprise values are supposed to be capital structure independent because they are only valuing the company on metrics that occur before the impact of the Company's capital structure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a8f4d0b823ec45f1f14ee70df1183374",
"text": "It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter. Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends). One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described. But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities. That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that. We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios. That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices. It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
be86bc3da83704d51f4be91ca53837f7
|
I have a million dollars of disposable income. What should I do to best benefit the economy?
|
[
{
"docid": "edc2e1722fa67664ed96b9c31ff8ebc4",
"text": "\"At first, I thought this might be too broad. There are of course thousands of things that you can do with your money to \"\"help the economy\"\". But I think that there is room to discuss some broad strokes without trying to list a thousand details. Regular investing (as you are now) helps the economy in that companies obtain money by selling their stock. They can then use that money to fund expansion, etc. These things can help the economy permanently. Of course, they can also use the money to pay executive bonuses, which don't help the economy so much. Similarly, just spending money does not normally help the economy. Unless we are in a recession, it is mildly harmful to spend wastefully. Money that could be going to support long term improvements in production instead is used to buy a luxury that doesn't terribly interest you. I.e. if you don't want a bigger house or a more luxurious car don't buy it to \"\"stimulate\"\" the economy. Many charitable donations have the same problem. They help short term consumption somewhere. And of course the charity starts asking you for more money. Many charities waste most of a donation trying to get another one from the same person or family. Sir John Maynard Keynes proposed that the best thing that people could do to help the economy is to invest in things that cause economic activity in turn. He was mostly talking about things like roads, bridges, and dams that are out of the investing range of most people, so he wanted governments to do it, particularly during a recession. So we are looking for ways to invest in durable improvements that will support economic activity in the future. A million dollars is a small amount for many things, but there are some activities that work. I'm going to list a few examples, but there are certainly others: Fund microfinance. Basically loan your million dollars to people who need a small amount of money. These programs often allow you to determine the initial recipient and then that person determines the next recipient. A million dollars can finance hundreds if not thousands of these loans. They may be in the United States or in a developing country. Set up a scholarship. My recommendation would be to find an existing scholarship with a few recipients and ask them to add one a year for the million dollars. A million dollars should typically produce about a scholarship a year in returns after inflation. Of course, that's just regular inflation. Education inflation is higher. Solar prize. Fund a program that gives out one solar installation every year or five to a family that owns a house, is struggling to pay utilities, and makes a compelling case. Basically, whenever the investment grows enough to support it, make a new prize. Buy something that will help other people make money. This is just six ideas off the top of my head. The goal here is to create something lasting that will promote economic activity. So a program that loans money forward. Or a scholarship or free textbook, particularly in a STEM field. A small piece of infrastructure that helps people move around to work or spend their money. Solar is a bit of a stretch here, but it can be justified if you believe that an investment now is an investment in moving towards the future. The key thing here is to make your money do double duty. By spending your money during a recession or investing during the rest of the business cycle, you can get some value for your money. But even better is if that spending has a societal return as well. Microfinance, scholarships, and infrastructure do that. There is the immediate spending, plus there is the effect of the spending. A business is established. A mind is trained and working at a high income job. People can move, work, and spend their own money.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d4fd86258ec74ae357c703e1e22ab911",
"text": "Consider a single person with a net worth of N where N is between one and ten million dollars. has no source of income other than his investments How much dividends and interest do your investments return every year? At 5%, a US$10M investment returns $500K/annum. Assuming you have no tax shelters, you'd pay about $50% (fed and state) income tax. https://budgeting.thenest.com/much-income-should-spent-mortgage-10138.html A prudent income multiplier for home ownership is 3x gross income. Thus, you should be able to comfortably afford a $1.5M house. Of course, huge CC debt load, ginormous property taxes and the (full) 5 car garage needed to maintain your status with the Joneses will rapidly eat into that $500K.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c14b4881f89e813dcec5a551b30856b2",
"text": "2 very viable options. Real Estate is cheap now and if you hold a few properties for the long term the price should rise. You can use them as rental properties to supplement your income. In addition agriculture is also very viable. How else you gunna feed 7 billion? Might as well cash in on that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e70f070567f72d3cd82300d15e0e1f7c",
"text": "\"I realize that \"\"a million dollars\"\" is a completely arbitrary figure, but it's one people fixate on. Perhaps folks just meant it's getting easier because inflation has made it a far less lofty sum than when the word \"\"millionaire\"\" was coined. Your point is correct - it' relatively easier as the 1 million dollar nowadays is no where as valuable as compared in the old days after the inflation adjustment. However the way to achieve that is easier said than done: The most possible way is to run your own business (assuming you will make profit). For most of the people running a job to earn a living - the job income is the biggest factor. Being extremely frugal wouldn't help much if you don't maximize your income potential. Earning a million dollar through investment? How much capitals are you able to invest in? 5k? 50k? 500k? I see no way to earn 1 million with 5k from investment, I wouldn't call it easy. This again depends on your income. With better income of course you could dedicate a larger portion to investment, without exposing too much risk and having to affect your way of life. (3) Invest some part of your income over a long period of time and let the stock market do the work I'd say this is more geared towards beating the inflation and earn a few extra bucks instead of getting very rich (this is being very relative). Just a word of cautions, the mindset of investment being the shortcut to wealth is very dangerous and often leads to speculative behavior.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ea3a95bde265cbe730cb81cbbe0e9ba",
"text": "His net worth is going to be very different from his liquid assets. It’s not like he can write an $80B check. When you give a homeless person a dollar, are you basing it on what’s in your wallet or based on the worth of all your assets (home, car, electronics, etc)? Next question you should have is “Why the ef is anyone else telling me how much of my money I should give away?”",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd3c6e4a2fd7f18be93d7d51a00d951f",
"text": "That's what I would do; 1.2 million dollars is a lot of money, but it doesn't make you retired for the rest of your life: There is a big crisis coming soon (my personal prediction) in the next 10-15 years, and when this happens: government will hold your money if you leave them in the bank (allowing you to use just part of it; you will have to prove the reason you need it), government will pass bills to make it very hard to close your investment positions, and government will pass new laws to create new taxes for people with a lot of money (you). To have SOME level of security I would separate my investment in the following: 20% I would buy gold certificates and the real thing (I would put the gold in a safe(s)). 20% I would put in bitcoin (you would have to really study this if you are new to crypto currency in order to be safe). 40% I would invest in regular finance products (bonds, stocks and options, FX). 20% I would keep in the bank for life expenses, specially if you don't want work for money any more. 20% I would invest in startup companies exchanging high risk hoping for a great return. Those percentages might change a little depending how good/confident you become after investing, knowing about business, etc...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84eafeadbe5a92a15258a536ee4468df",
"text": "\"At its heart, I think the best spirit of \"\"donation\"\" is helping others less fortunate than yourself. But as long as the US remains solvent, the chief benefit of paying down the national debt is - like paying off a credit card - lowering the future interest payments the U.S. taxpayer has to make. Since the wealthy pay a disproportionately large portion of taxes (per capita), your hard earned money would be disproportionately benefitting the wealthy. So I'd recommend you do one or both of the following: instead target your donations to a charity whose average beneficiary is less fortunate than yourself take political action with an aim towards balancing the federal budget (since the US national debt is principally financed in the form of 30 year treasuries, the U.S. will be completely out of debt if it can maintain a balanced budget for 30 years recanted, see below)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d3076b1b2a9e936b239cfe2cddfc971",
"text": "It is worth noting first that Real Estate is by no means passive income. The amount of effort and cost involved (maintenance, legal, advertising, insurance, finding the properties, ect.) can be staggering and require a good amount of specialized knowledge to do well. The amount you would have to pay a management company to do the work for you especially with only a few properties can wipe out much of the income while you keep the risk. However, keshlam's answer still applies pretty well in this case but with a lot more variability. One million dollars worth of property should get you there on average less if you do much of the work yourself. However, real estate because it is so local and done in ~100k chunks is a lot more variable than passive stocks and bonds, for instance, as you can get really lucky or really unlucky with location, the local economy, natural disasters, tenants... Taking out loans to get you to the million worth of property faster but can add a lot more risk to the process. Including the risk you wouldn't have any money on retirement. Investing in Real Estate can be a faster way to retirement than some, but it is more risky than many and definitely not passive.",
"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": "0fe9d39e7b405c0ae005431e91c3633b",
"text": "\"You don't seem to understand wealth. It's not money, really. Wealth is more good stuff to people. It really doesn't matter how it's distributed for it to be wealth. If you just give poor people money, you might actually improve things, like lobotomia might improve brains. Mix it, and it might settle in better order. The economy \"\"grows\"\" because people get more good stuff done than they consume. If you pay people for doing nothing in massive scale, you're just making them consume, but not to make any good stuff. They probably spend the money on something that will make more good stuff to people, that's true. And that's the reason why you might get a way with one time lobotomia, but it's terrible if you are competing with countries who don't do missteps, and every expense they do increases the economy in itself + the effect above. How you should give money away? As an investment to a company that is making a new conquer. Jobs, goods and more competition, all good.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc27884db05e9293f90b59df81f38156",
"text": "At your young age, the most of your wealth is your future labor income (unless you are already rich). Your most profitable investment at this time is most likely to be investment in your human capital (your professional skills, career opportunities). Depending on how you plan to earn your money, invest time and effort to enable you to earn better wages in that activity. So focus on education or professional training. Also, consider that it is probably your total lifetime utility/welfare you should maximize (but you decide!). I suggest you do not focus narrowly on earning as much money as possible. Consider what sort of life you want and what you need to do to enable it. Best of luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e244a7fb7ed5f037bee3ed9490977669",
"text": "\"Most other countries are worse off. Your perception of what is a resource intensive lifestyle does not take into consideration future innovation or adaptation. Government debt is large but not insurmountable. Much of it is owned by the government itself (social security trust fund and the federal reserve) and by domestic banks. The \"\"crumbling infrastructure\"\" claim is often made but is rarely articulated well so it's hard to respond to. Entitlements is a bit more complicated an issue due to political gridlock, but I expect that at least minor changes will be made gradually that will help deal with this problem. If not major reform, small things like pushing back the benefit age a year here and a year there, repealing benefits for the wealthy, reducing the size of cost of living adjustments, reducing the amount that is paid out to higher earning recipients, increasing the amount of yearly income that is subject to FICA... These are piecemeal changes that both sides could agree to even in the current political climate. Medicare is the bigger cost, but how to deal with that is difficult to determine considering what's going on with obamacare. Municipal and state governments will not fail if they go bankrupt. Most municipalities and states are able to balance a budget. It can be done but in some place it isn't because politicians don't have enough backbone to say no. When they go bankrupt and are unable to borrow money, they will have no choice and can blame their cuts on the banks who won't loan them money. That is, unless the people running the federal government also have no backbone and decide to bail them out, in which case we will have an enormous case of moral hazard on our hands. The economic dominoes in Europe and China are not damaging the core of their economies. Unless Europe breaks apart violently and goes to war with itself or China has a civil war, the basic aspects of their economy that make them a valuable part of the global economy will not go away. Their productive capacities will remain intact and we'll still want to buy stuff from each other. The beauty of free market capitalism is that it's so adaptable and the fact that things are changing does not mean that everyone will be worse off. Whether or not the US is above everyone else in the end is mostly irrelevant, but the fundamental aspects of the US economy that make it among the strongest in the world will not change because of these things. Our workforce will remain highly educated, very productive and very innovative. We have the best farmland in the world and a lot of it, enormous amounts of natural resources, a relatively flexible and adaptable economy and a tremendous amount of wealth. There may be troubles related to certain institutions and governing bodies, but remember that those things are not the economy. The economy is the people, the things they can make, the things they know, and the things that they can do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ee9ed2e804a5d0b0b1f130dad46ebe6",
"text": "\"Your house doesn't need to multiply in order to earn a return. Your house can provide shelter. That is not money, but is an economic good and can also save you money (if you would otherwise pay rent). This is the primary form of return on the investment for many houses. It is similar for other large capital investments - like industrial robots, washing machines, or automobiles. The value of money depends on: As long as the size and velocity of the money supply changes about as much as the overall economic activity changes, everything is pretty much good. A little more and you will see the money lose value (inflation); a little less and the money will gain value (deflation). As long as the value of inflation or deflation remains very low, the specifics matter relatively little. Prices (including wages, the price of work) do a good job of adjusting when there is inflation or deflation. The main problem is that people tend to use money as a unit of account, e.g. you owe $100,000 on your mortgage, I have $500 in the bank. Changing the value of those numbers makes it really hard to plan for the future! Imagine if prices and wages fell in half: it would be twice as hard to pay off your mortgage. Or if the bank expected massive inflation in the future: they would want to charge you a lot more interest! Presently, inflation is the norm because the government entities, who help adjust how much money there will be (through monetary policy - interest rates and the like - ask about it if you're interested), will generally gradually increase the supply of money a little bit more quickly than the economy in general. They may also be worried that outright deflation over the long term will lead to people postponing purchases (to get more for their money later), harming overall economic activity, so they tend to err on the slightly positive side. The value of money, however, has not really \"\"ordinarily decreased\"\" until the modern era (the 1930s or so). During much of history, a relatively low fixed amount of valuable commodities (gold) served as money. When the economy grew, and the same amount of money represented more economic activity, the money became more valuable, and deflation ensued. This could have the unfortunate effect of deterring investment, because rich jerks with lots of money could see their riches increase just by holding on to those riches instead of doing anything productive with them. And changes in the supply of gold wreaked havoc with the money supply whenever there was some event like a gold rush: Because precious metals were at the base of the monetary system, rushes increased the money supply which resulted in inflation. Soaring gold output from the California and Australia gold rushes is linked with a thirty percent increase in wholesale prices between 1850 and 1855. Likewise, right at the end of the nineteenth century a surge in gold production reversed a decades-long deflationary trend and is often credited with aiding indebted farmers and helping to end the Populist Party’s strength and its call for a bimetallic (gold and silver) money standard. -- The California Gold Rush Today, there is way too little gold production to represent all the growth in world economic activity - but we don't have a gold standard anymore, so gold is valuable on its own merits, because people want to buy it using money, and its price is free to fluctuate. When it gets more valuable, and people pay more for it, mines will go through more effort to locate, extract and refine it because it will be more profitable. That's how most commodities work. For more information on these tidbits of history, some in-depth articles on:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "020e7b03bd2546714cf636928de96efc",
"text": "Most people when asked what would they do with $X dollars say: Pay debt (their own / loved ones) Buy a nice house Buy a nice car Travel 460 million is plenty to do all those things. With the rest I'd start a bond ladder and try to live off the interest",
"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": "8ca5a07dbc9252168d91b1abc00a1885",
"text": "Great questions -- the fact that you're thinking about it is what's most important. I think a priority should be maximizing any employer match in your 401(k) because it's free money. Second would be paying off high interest debt because it's a big expense. Everything else is a matter of setting good financial habits so I think the order of importance will vary from person to person. (That's why I ordered the priorities the way I did: employer matching is the easiest way to get more income with no additional work, and paying down high-interest debt is the best way to lower your long-term expenses.) After that, continue to maximize your income and savings, and be frugal with your expenses. Avoid debt. Take a vacation once in a while, too!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
af80e9c5955d6e793599499dcdfa416d
|
Why is it rational to pay out a dividend?
|
[
{
"docid": "283fc5c844dfed1d7a837cf58c8a42b5",
"text": "The main reason, as far as I can see, is that the dividends are payments with which the shareholders may do what they want. Capital that the company has no use for does not make a significant positive return on investment, as you pointed out, yes the company could accrue interest, but that is not going to make the company large sums of cash. While the company may be great at making shoes - maybe even the best in the world - doesn't mean they are good investors. Sure they could dabble at using their capital to invest in other equities, but they don't, because they just want to focus on making shoes. If the dividend goes to the investors, they can do what they wish, be it reinvest in the company, or invest elsewhere. Other companies that may make good use of the capital, and create significant returns on it are one such example. That is the rational answer, beyond that, one of the main reasons is that people like the feeling of receiving dividends - it might not be the answer you are looking for, but many people prefer companies that pay dividends for no rational reason over companies which grow their asset value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fd41a325f0fb649082ee85699cff9a3",
"text": "First, you need to understand that not every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in companies that pay a regular dividend and use that income while keeping his investment intact. Imagine this: Let's say I own a profitable company, and I offer to sell you part ownership in that company. However, I tell you this upfront: no matter how much profit our company makes, you will never get a penny from me. You will be getting a stock certificate - a piece of paper - and that's it. You can watch the company grow, and you can tell yourself you own it, but the only way you will personally benefit from your investment would be to sell your piece to someone else, who would also never see a penny in profit. Does that sound like a good investment? The fact of the matter is, stocks in companies that do not distribute dividends do have value, but this value is largely based on the potential of profits/dividends at some point in the future. If a company vows never ever to pay dividends, why would anyone invest? An investment would be more of a donation (like Kickstarter) at that point. A company that pays dividends is possibly past their growth stage. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have stopped growing altogether, but remember that an expansion project for any company does not automatically yield a good result. If a company does not have a good opportunity currently for a growth project, I as an investor would rather get a dividend than have the company blow all the profit on a ill-fated gamble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a576e7d641e8ee105c3d97b8edfc4b51",
"text": "Actually, share holder value is is better maximised by borrowing, and paying dividends is fairly irrelevant but a natural phase on a mature and stable company. Company finance is generally a balance between borrowing, and money raised from shares. It should be self evident with a little thought that if not now, then in the future, a company should be able to create earnings in excess of the cost of borrowing, or it's not a very valuable company to invest in! In fact what's the point of borrowing if the cost of the interest is greater than whatever wealth is being generated? The important thing about this is that money raised from shares is more expensive than borrowing. If a company doesn't pay dividends, and its share price goes up because of the increasing value of the business, and in your example the company is not borrowing more because of this, then the proportion of the value of the company that is based on the borrowing goes down. So, this means a higher and higher proportion of the finance of a company is provided by the more expensive share holders than the less expensive borrowing, and thus the company is actually providing LESS value to share holders than it might. Of course, if a company doesn't pay a dividend AND borrows more, this is not true, but that's not the scenario in your question, and generally mature companies with mature earnings may as well pay dividends as they aren't on a massive expansion drive in the same way. Now, this relative expense of share holders and borrowing is MORE true for a mature company with stable earnings, as they are less of a risk and can borrow at more favourable rates, AND such a company is LIKELY to be expanding less rapidly than a small new innovative company, so for both these reasons returning money to share holders and borrowing (or maintaining existing lending facilities) maintains a relatively more efficient financing ratio. Of course all this means that in theory, a company should be more efficient if it has no share holders at all and borrows ALL of the money it needs. Yes. In practise though, lenders aren't so keen on that scenario, they would rather have shareholders sharing the risk, and lending a less than 100% proportion of the total of a companies finance means they are much more likely to get their money back if things go horribly wrong. To take a small start up company by comparison, lenders will be leary of lending at all, and will certainly impose high rates if they do, or ask for guarantors, or demand security (and security is only available if there is other investment besides the loan). So this is why a small start up is likely to be much more heavily or exclusively funded by share holders. Also the start up is likely not to pay a dividend, because for a start it's probably not making any profit, but even if it is and could pay a dividend, in this situation borrowing is unavailable or very expensive and this is a rapidly growing business that wants to keep its hands on all the cash it can to accelerate itself. Once it starts making money of course a start up is on its way to making the transition, it becomes able to borrow money at sensible rates, it becomes bigger and more valuable on the back of the borrowing. Another important point is that dividend income is more stable, at least for the mature companies with stable earnings of your scenario, and investors like stability. If all the income from a portfolio has to be generated by sales, what happens when there is a market crash? Suddenly the investor has to pay, where as with dividends, the company pays, at least for a while. If a company's earnings are hit by market conditions of course it's likely the dividend will eventually be cut, but short term volatility should be largely eliminated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "521df5e113f22567afd3acdd292d5b3f",
"text": "It comes down to the practical value of paying dividends. The investor can continually receive a stream of income without selling shares of the stock. If the stock did not pay a dividend and wanted continual income, the investor would have to continually sell shares to gain this stream of income, incurring transaction costs and increased time and effort involved with making these transactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1bc62cb643f486e533c3927d4cf9cd7",
"text": "The real value of a share of stock is the current cash value of all dividends the owner will receive, plus the current cash value of the final liquidation if any. Since people with different needs may judge the current cash value of an income stream differently, there would be a market basis for people to buy and sell stocks even if everyone could predict all future payouts perfectly. If shareholders knew that a company wouldn't pay any dividends until it was liquidated in the year 2066, whereupon it would pay $2000/share, then each share would in 2016 effectively be a fifty-year zero-coupon bond with a $2000 maturity value. While some investors would be willing to trade in such an instrument, the amount of money a company could charge for such an instrument would be far lower than the money it could charge for one with payouts that were more evenly distributed through time. Since the founders of most companies want their companies to be around for a long time, that would mean that shareholders would have no expectation of their shares ever yielding anything of value within any foreseeable timeframe. Even those who would be more interested in share-price appreciation than dividends wouldn't be able to see share prices rise if there wasn't any likelihood of the stock being bought by someone who wanted the dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22dfc1874b671568caacf18252b7cbd0",
"text": "Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too) Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74ef942d4e73c953544714a81f8b0383",
"text": "Paying out dividends and financing new projects with debt also lessens the agency problem. The consequences of a failed project are greater when debt is used, so the manager now has a greater incentive to see that the project is a success. This, in addition to the paid divided is a benefit to the shareholder. If equity wasn't paid out and instead used for the project then the manager may not be so interested in its success. And if it's a failure then the shareholders are worse off.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "caa2039cbfb91620e8f945061e12ad2b",
"text": "Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16b0f346130714809d8295fe35c92f4d",
"text": "\"Dividend-paying securities generally have predictable cash flows. A telecom, electric or gas utility is a great example. They collect a fairly predictable amount of money and sells goods at a fairly predictable or even regulated markup. It is easy for these companies to pay a consistent dividend since the business is \"\"sticky\"\" and insulated by cyclical factors. More cyclic investments like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Gold, etc are more exposed to the crests and troughs of the economy. They swing with the economy, although not always on the same cycle. The DJIA is a basket of 30 large industrial stocks. Gold is a commodity that spikes when people are faced with uncertainty. The \"\"Alpha\"\" and \"\"Beta\"\" of a stock will give you some idea of the general behavior of a stock against the entire market, when the market is trending up and down respectively.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b48723be4cfd22c056c3bd1f60c6f2b5",
"text": "Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3149270826356975b301bd95c0ebabf6",
"text": "\"This question is predicated on the assumption that investors prefer dividends, as this depends on who you're speaking to. Some investors prefer growth stocks (some which don't pay dividends), so in this case, we're covering the percent of investors who like dividend paying stocks. It depends on who you ask and it also depends on how self-aware they are because some people may give reasons that make little financial sense. The two major benefits that I hear are fundamentally psychological: Dividends are like mini-paychecks. Since people get a dopamine jolt from receiving a paycheck, I would predict the same holds true for receiving dividends. More than likely, the brain feels a reward when getting dividends; even if the dividend stock performs lower than a growth stock for a decade, the experience of receiving dividends may feel more rewarding (plus, depending on the institution, they may get a report or see the tax information for the year, and that also feels good). Some value investors don't reinvest dividends, as they believe the price of the stock matters (stocks are either cheap or expensive and automatic reinvestment to these investors implies that the price of a stock doesn't matter), so dividends allow them to rebuild their cash after a buy. They can either buy more shares, if the stock is cheap, or keep the cash if the stock is expensive. Think about Warren Buffett here: he purchased $3 billion worth of shares of Wells Fargo at approximately $8-12 a share in 2009 (from my memory, as people were shocked that be bought into a bank when no one liked banks). Consider how much money he makes from dividends off that purchase alone and if he were to currently believe Wells Fargo was overpriced, he could keep the cash and buy something else he believes is cheaper. In these cases, dividends automatically build cash cushions post buying and many value investors believe that one should always have cash on hand. This second point is a little tricky because it can involve risk assessment: some investors believe that high dividend paying stocks, like MO, won't experience the huge declines of indexes like the SPY. MO routed the SPY in 2009 (29% vs. 19%) and these investors believe that's because it's yield was too desired (it feels safer to them - the index side would argue \"\"but what happens in the long run?\"\"). The problem I have with this argument (which is frequent) is that it doesn't hold true for every high yield stock, though some high yield stocks do show strong resistance levels during bear markets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c90632e5a5534cfb491f783708f5b0c9",
"text": "There are many stocks that don't have dividends. Their revenue, growth, and reinvestment help these companies to grow, and my share of such companies represent say, one billionth of a growing company, and therefore worth more over time. Look up the details of Berkshire Hathaway. No dividend, but a value of over $100,000. Not a typo, over one hundred thousand dollars per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "07bfc4bf7cdff666fb929873475d0159",
"text": "Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question. Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d133fdf8af7ed7e81a929aefa9fb736",
"text": "The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can sell it and make more money than dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b6204d3f9eabcbb760debffba4fbe26",
"text": "Why do people talk about stock that pay high dividends? Traditionally people who buy dividend stocks are looking for income from their investments. Most dividend stock companies pay out dividends every quarter ( every 90 days). If set up properly an investor can receive a dividend check every month, every week or as often as they have enough money to stagger the ex-dates. There is a difference in high $$ amount of the dividend and the yield. A $1/share dividend payout may sound good up front, but... how much is that stock costing you? If the stock cost you $100/share, then you are getting 1% yield. If the stock cost you $10/share, you are getting 10% yield. There are a lot of factors that come into play when investing in dividend stocks for cash flow. Keep in mind why are you investing in the first place. Growth or cash flow. Arrange your investing around your major investment goals. Don't chase big dollar dividend checks, do your research and follow a proven investment plan to reach your goals safely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5",
"text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3aeb17bf4b73d0f13117216075ec7f99",
"text": "\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \"\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\"\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \"\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\"\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "743d2e65a512c9a50e965e0a1b4a80f0",
"text": "\"Dividends telegraph that management has a longer term focus than just the end of quarter share price. There is a committment to at least maintain (if not periodically increase) the dividend payout year over year. Management understands that cutting or pausing dividends will cause dividend investors in market to dump shares driving down the stock price. Dividends can have preferential tax treatment in some jurisdictions, either for an individual compared to capital gains or compared to the corporation paying taxes themselves. For example, REITs (real estate investment trusts) are a type of corporation that in order to not pay corporate income tax are required to pay out 95% of income as dividends each year. These are not the only type, MLP (master limited partnerships) and other \"\"Partnership\"\" structures will always have high dividend rates by design. Dividends provide cash flow and trade market volatility for actual cash. Not every investor needs cash flow, but for certain investors, it reduces the risks of a liquidity crisis, such as in retirement. The alternative for an investor who seeks to use the sale of shares would be to maintain a sufficient cash reserve for typical market recessions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71e70c6c3d426e2f03e616d2b9f7092d",
"text": "\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8cee11e55fd3e106fa825d34f6905a0",
"text": "There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0010b40293b918119c27d6115a22a3f6
|
What exactly is a “bad,” “standard,” or “good” annual raise? If I am told a hard percentage and don't get it, should I look elsewhere?
|
[
{
"docid": "dea1a2c3d9dde75823e01547e7a286d1",
"text": "\"TLDR: You will probably need to move to a different employer to get the raise you want/need/deserve. Some employers, in the US, punish longevity through a number of practices. My wife worked as a nurse for about 20 years. During that time she had many employers, leveraging raises with job changes. She quit nursing about 6 years ago and was being paid $38/hour at the time. She had a friend that worked in the same system for 18 years. They had the same position in the same hospital that friend's current rate of pay: $26/hour. You probably don't want to be that person. Given your Stack Overflow participation, I would assume you are some type of web developer. I would recommend updating your resume, and moving for a 20% increase or more. You'll get it as it is a great time to be a web developer. Spending on IT tends to go in cycles, and right now budgets are very healthy for hiring new talent. While your current company might not have enough money in the budget to give you a raise, they would not hesitate hiring someone with your skills at 95K if they had an opening. Its common, but frustrating to all that are involved except the bean counters that looks at people like us as commodities. Think about this: both sides of the table agree that you deserve a 5K raise. But lets say next year only 3k is in the budget. So you are out the 5k you should have been given this year, plus the 2k that you won't get, plus whatever raise was fair for you next year. That is a lot of money! Time to go! Don't bother on holding onto any illusions of a counter offer by your current employer. There will be too much resentment. Shake the dust off your feet and move on. Edit: Some naysayers will cite short work histories as problems for future employment. It could happen in a small number of shops, but short work histories are common in technology that recruiters rarely bat an eye. If they do, as with any objection, it is up to you to sell yourself. In Cracking the Code Interview the author cites that no one is really expecting you to stay beyond 5 years. Something like this would work just fine: \"\"I left Acme because there were indications of poor financial health. Given the hot market at the time I was able to find a new position without the worry of pending layoffs.\"\" If you are a contractor six month assignments are the norm. Also many technology resumes have overlapping assignments. Its what happens when someone is in demand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c213852bbd84536d7d530f5163e37c72",
"text": "Any such number would depend on the country, the market, and the economic situation - especially inflation ratio. Generally, if you are not in a booming or a dying technology, getting a raise above the inflation ratio is 'good'; anything below is poor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9452c0d753736f741583048c7893c6fd",
"text": "Keep in mind that unless you have a contract that says you get a certain amount of raise every year, the employer is not required to give you any raise. The quality of a raise is too subjective for anyone to tell you how to judge it. You either get a raise you can live with, it makes you content/happy, and you continue working there, or you get a raise that does not satisfy you, and you jump ship to get more money. Some (most?) employers know that raises can be the tipping point for employees deciding to leave. If you consistently receive raises greater than inflation rate, the message is that the employer values you. If the opposite, they value you enough to continue your employment, but are willing to replace you if you decide to leave. Key thing here is there are three ways of getting increased pay with your current employer. Cost of living or annual raise is the one that we are discussing. Merit based raises are a second way. If you think you deserve a raise, due to loyal consistent contribution, or contributing above your duty, or for whatever reason, then ask for a raise. The third way is to be promoted or transferred to a higher paying position. Often times, you should also make your case to your supervisor why you should have the new position, similar to asking for a merit raise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9627315eddd9f8cc36b16735eb7d2b78",
"text": "You are not actually entitled to any raise at all, unless you had something contractually (legally binding) which made that so. I'm answering this from the UK, but it has been common practice for people over the last 10 years or so to receive no yearly raise, in some sectors. This is what I would consider a bad raise - if wages are not kept in line with inflation, you are effectively earning less every year. In this regard I would not work for any employer who did not offer an annual raise that was at the very least covering the rate of inflation (these rates are easy to find in your country by Googling it). In terms of a standard raise, I would argue there is no such thing. This depends on the industry/sector you work in, your employers opinion of your performance (note I've used the word opinion because sometimes you may think the effort you put in is different to what they think - be prepared to give evidence of what you've achieved for them, with things to back it up). A good raise is anything which is way above a standard raise. Since there is no concise definiton of a standard raise, this is also hard to quantify. As others have mentioned do not stay in a role where you are not being given a raise that covers inflation, because it means every year you have less purchasing power, which is akin to your salary going down. It's very easy to justify to an employer you're leaving - and indeed one you're going to - why you're making the move under these conditions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8da34da6ec8ad4ad3b909968309d6816",
"text": "\"What makes a \"\"standard\"\" raise depends on how well the economy is doing, how well your particular industry is doing, and how well your employer is doing. All these things change constantly, so anyone who says, \"\"a good raise is 5%\"\" or whatever number is being simplistic. Even if true when he said it, it won't necessarily be true next year, or this year in a different industry, etc. The thing to do is to look for salary surveys that are reasonably current and applicable. If today, in your industry, the average annual raise is 3% -- again, just making up a number -- then that's what you should think of as \"\"standard\"\". If you want a number, okay: In general, as a first-draft number, I look for a raise that's 2% or so above the current inflation rate. Yes, of course I'd LIKE to get a 20% raise every year, but that's not going to happen in real life. On the other hand if a company gives me raises that don't keep pace with inflation, than barring special circumstances I'm going to be looking for another job. But there are all sorts of special circumstances. If the economy is in a depression and unemployment in my field is 50%, I'll probably figure I'm lucky to have a job at all and not be too worried about raises. If the economy is booming and all my friends are getting 10% and 20% raises, then I'll want that too. As others have said, in the United States at least, the best way to get a pay raise is to change jobs. I think most American companies are absolutely stupid about this. They don't want to give current employees big raises, so they let them quit, and then hire replacements at a much higher salary than they were paying the guy they just drove to quit. And the replacement doesn't know the company and may have a lot to learn before he is fully productive. And then they congratulate themselves that they kept raises this year to only 3% -- even though total salaries paid went up by 10% because the new hires demanded higher salaries. They actively punish employees for staying with the company. (Reminds me of an article I read in a business magazine by an executive of a cell phone company. He bemoaned the fact that in the cell phone industry it is very hard to keep customers: they are constantly switching to other vendors. And I thought, Duh, maybe it's because you offer big discounts for the first year or two, and after that you jack your prices up through the roof. You actively punish your customers for staying with you more than 2 years, and then you wonder why customers leave after 2 years.) Oh, if you do change jobs: Absolutely do not buy a line of \"\"we'll start you off with this lower salary but don't worry because you'll get a big raise in a year\"\". When you're looking for a job, it's very easy to turn down a poor offer. Once you have taken a job, leaving to get another job is a big decision and a lot of work. So you have way more bargaining power on starting salary than on raises. And the company knows it and is trying to take advantage of it. Also consider not just percentage increase but what you're making now versus what other people with similar experience are making. If people comparable to you are making $50k and you're making $30k, you're more likely to get a big raise than if you're already making $80k. If the company says, \"\"We just don't have the budget to give you a raise\"\", the key question is, \"\"Is that true?\"\" If the company is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and trying to cut costs everywhere, then even if they know you're a good and productive employee, they may really just not have the money to give you a good raise. But if business is booming, this could just be an excuse. It might be an excuse for \"\"we're trying to bleed employees white so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus this year\"\". Or it might be a euphemism for \"\"you're really not a very useful employee and we're seriously thinking of firing you, no way we're going to give you a raise for the little bit of work you do when you bother to show up\"\". My final word: Be realistic. What matters isn't what you want or think you need, but what you are worth to the company, and what other people with similar skills are willing to work for. If you are doing work that brings in $20k per year for the company, there is no way they are going to pay you more than $20k for very long. You can go on and on about how expensive it is these days to pay the mortgage and pay medical bills and feed your 10 children and support your cocaine addiction, but none of that is relevant to what you are worth to the company. Likewise if there are millions of people out there who would love to have your job for $20k, if you demand a lot more than that they're going to fire you and hire one of them. Conversely, if you're bringing in $100k a year for the company, they'll be willing to pay you a substantial percentage of that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfde5f13a4429df8ffea3d5b0623b409",
"text": "\"your question is based on a false premise. there is no \"\"standard\"\" for raises. some jobs in some years see huge raises. other years those same jobs may see average pay rates drop. if you want a benchmark, you would be better off looking at typical pay rates for people in your job, in your city with your experience. sites like glassdoor can provide that type of information. if you are at the low end of that range, you can probably push for a raise. if you are at the high end, you may find it more difficult. typically your employer will pay you just enough to keep you from leaving. so they will offer you as little as they think you will accept. you can either accept it or find another job that pays more. if you work in software, then you can probably make more by switching jobs. if you work in food service, you might have more trouble finding higher pay elsewhere. if you do find another employer, you might be able to elicit a counter-offer from your current employer. in fact, even suggesting that you will look for another employer may prompt your current employer to be more generous. that said, if your employer thinks you are on your way out, they might cut your bonus or lay you off.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38ecef31ad5e70b23758e8149dc28c7e",
"text": "\"There are many variables to this answer. One is, how close are you to the average salary range in the industry you are working in. If you are making more than average it would make sense that you are not getting a big raise from the employer's perspective. You have to be a top performer if you are looking for the top salary range. Big raises come from promotions or new jobs, generally speaking. The short and personal answer is, I worked at a big company (bank) and now know that companies do not give large raises to people as a rule. Honestly the only way to make good $ is to leave, all employers have all kinds of excuses as to why they are not giving you significant raises. Large raises and bonuses are reserved for \"\"management\"\". The bigger the company, the less likely it is that they will give you raises just because, esp. above 3-5%. At the same time, the market sets the rate, and if you are not getting passively recruited, it may mean that you need to work on getting a broader skill set if you are looking to make more $ somewhere else. The bottom line is, you have to think of yourself as a free agent at all times. You also need to make yourself more attractive as a potential hire elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ae4c7f1d347f267ce431d74c3b90be5f",
"text": "Not saying it is bad, just saying they put a positive spin on it when in fact it just something that makes good business sense. Both you and I know that Reddit is filled with people complaining about minimum raise and earning a living...etc. This article paints Costco as the good guy, but overall it means one guy gets a well paying job while another one gets no job at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf97003bf5e3864dccaec3b5e5e4b469",
"text": "I was having a conversation about this recently because I got a raise and it kind of surprised me I didn't have to fight so much for it. Companies regularly give us CPI increases but in certain fields (especially IT at the moment) wage growth is so rapid that in 1-2 years you're 10-20% behind your peers. A lot of people change jobs regularly to avoid this. I've fought for raises and kept moving around to different departments to keep my wage up to baseline but I get that for a lot of people thats not possible due to company culture.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1ce8250eb72a7472e0fcb696d1dc384",
"text": "\"In general, when dealing with quantities like net income that are not restricted to being positive, \"\"percentage change\"\" is a problematic measure. Even with small positive values it can be difficult to interpret. For example, compare these two companies: Company A: Company B: At a glance, I think most people would come away with the impression that both companies did badly in Y2, but A made a much stronger recovery. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9 looks unimportant compared to the difference between 100,000 and 40,000. But if we translate those to dollars: Company A: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.1m, Y3 $100.1m Company B: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.3m, Y3 $120.3m Company B has grown by a net of 20% over two years; Company A by only 1%. If you're lucky enough to know that income will always be positive after Y1 and won't drop too close to zero, then this doesn't matter very much and you can just look at year-on-year growth, leaving Y1 as undefined. If you don't have that guarantee, then you may do better to look for a different and more stable metric, the other answers are correct: Y1 growth should be left blank. If you don't have that guarantee, then it might be time to look for a more robust measure, e.g. change in net income as a percentage of turnover or of company value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "413df26f033408bb007111463e8079c8",
"text": "\"It's simple. At 100% match, it would take a \"\"long\"\" time for bad fees to negate the benefit. Longer than the average person stays with one company. Even though $50/10 shares is crazy, if you wait till you have $500, it's 10%. Still crazy, but you are still getting 90% of the match. I'd avoid this, however, and just go with the closest thing they have to an S&P fund. Invest outside this account to save the right amount to fund your retirement. 2% total isn't enough, obviously.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f370d8a71f896a0c56549e8a543631df",
"text": "Yeah, I mean, what it really comes down to is the fact that life isn't fair. I would think that if your company is squeezed enough that it's paying a lot more for new employees who do what you do already, then if you go to your boss and ask for a raise, he's not going to say no. It's way easier (and cheaper) to keep an employee, particularly a good one, than to find someone new. Just a thought.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e0f407d03737175db7d72d8f5e9d3e4",
"text": "This is bad statistics. If you look at people who jumped ship, of course you're going to see bigger increases in salary because you're not counting those that looked for a new job and didn't find a better offer. They stayed put. People are complacent but companies are, too. Employers aren't putting a lot of effort into firing bad employees as soon as they can. So there are employees that aren't jumping ship and could be paid more but there are also employees that should be kicked off the ship and paid less, but aren't. All that said, staying put is easier than moving and there's a price for it. If you're willing to move around, you might do better. Might not. If you only look around at the ones that did move, of course it's going to look like they did better!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e62663c9c9db3037afa8721991aebb8d",
"text": "I guess that means I should be making about $250k a year right now. I've been at my company for 16 years. The wage and profit sharing program beat the market wages in my area by a wide margin. Not all companies are interested in screwing their employees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9efc8dff5ee49184615572633c56638e",
"text": "From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79de53b2ca5cd475b5f1a203e519e4fe",
"text": "I had a colleague turn down a raise once because he believed that female colleagues were already being paid well below his salary and it was unfair to further increase this gap. For very public figures raises are often declined as a form of leadership: showing that management is willing to forgo bonuses and salary increases as a form of solidarity with the employee population. Some leaders forgo a salary altogether (or take a $1/year salary).",
"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": "60d9ceffbc16b722672b2162d9c4c5fb",
"text": "\"This quote kind of shocked me: \"\"A well-run organization turns over 10% of their organizations, including senior leadership.\"\" I'm not in management, but I have *never* heard anyone say before that employee churn is a good thing. And wanting fully 10 % of all employees to resign every year? That sounds completely insane to me. Is that really normal? Am I not getting something? My current employer works hard on trying to retain employees. When employees quit, we need to train the replacement, it's probably going to take 6 months until the new employees is reasonably productive. Employees are actively encouraged to find new positions within the company and we have actually rehired several employees that quit to do something else and then decided they want to come back. This all seems logical and normal to me. The mindset of wanting to push a significant portion of your workforce away each year is utterly alien to me. Would somebody elucidate me?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a64ac63a5f9bcabcad824375d9dce35",
"text": "Most people aren't 'paid pretty darn well' when looking at historical real wages. This is the result of many things, one being corporate consolidation where any and all efficiencies are passed on to the executives and shareholders. Meanwhile, your wife's salary has been slowly eroded away for the past 30 years. I get trying to see the positive side but c'mon man, you gotta wake up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa8cc9360cece43923f2b00278f1931",
"text": "\"Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a \"\"feast or famine\"\" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33ef4776d479359b7d86ad4430afd6ed",
"text": "Maybe the disconnect is in how different people view work and money. In the standard view, work is something negative you do, in order to get something positive - money, or at least the act of spending money gets you something positive. If the work is particularly unpleasant, one would expect employees to demand more money to cancel out the negative things they have to put up with. On the other hand, if the work itself is a net positive even before pay, then when combined with pay, the combined positive may be worth more than the raise they're offered at another company - especially if the new conditions would be poor, and would cancel out the raise, leaving them unhappier, despite having more pay. Of course, we're not a bunch of robots weighing out positive and negative units, much of which are near impossible to measure anyway. I assume a lot of it is just going with gut reactions, using approximations and fuzzy predictions in decisions that sometimes appear rational, but when looking at the underlying data points, may be built on rather irrational hand waving...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "782d34d09fad76321585e1dd453f4ac6",
"text": "Future job offers can go up or down depending on your disclosure, people can interpret it as bragging... maybe you could just use a percentage?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
07387ed422562ef37321d18a4372a634
|
Profiting from the PWC Money Tree
|
[
{
"docid": "3671ac5be290ac862a495e70b2cbd840",
"text": "\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6db8ff167a2027d4fa6c4eb9c132fc41",
"text": "\"I think the key concept here is future value. The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities. For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom. I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously. A definition I like to use for market cap is \"\"the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company\"\"... so let's dissect that a little. The term \"\"present value\"\" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year. A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later. The \"\"all future earnings\"\" part is exactly what it sounds like. So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that \"\"the market\"\" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a299334dcf6600c0e5f2e0f087fa951",
"text": "You'd need millions of dollars to trade the number of shares it would take to profit from these penny variations. What you bring up here is the way high frequency firms front-run trades and profit on these pennies. Say you have a trade commission of $5. Every time you buy you pay $5, every time you sell you pay $5. So you need a gain in excess of $10, a 10% gain on $100. Now if you wanted to trade on a penny movement from $100 to $100.01, you need to have bought 1,000 shares totaling $100,000 for the $0.01 price movement to cover your commission costs. If you had $1,000,000 to put at risk, that $0.01 price movement would net you $90 after commission, $10,000,000 would have made you $990. You need much larger gains at the retail level because commissions will equate to a significant percentage of the money you're investing. Very large trading entities have much different arrangements and costs with the exchanges. They might not pay a fee on each transaction but something that more closely resembles a subscription fee, and costs something that more closely resembles a house. Now to your point, catching these price movements and profiting. The way high frequency trading firms purportedly make money relates to having a very low latency network connection to a particular exchange. Their very low latency/very fast network connection lets them see orders and transact orders before other parties. Say some stock has an ask at $101 x 1,000 shares. The next depth is $101.10. You see a market buy order come in for 1,000 shares and place a buy order for 1,000 shares at $101 which hits the exchange first, then immediately place a sell order at $101.09, changing the ask from $101.00 to $101.09 and selling in to the market order for a gain of $0.09 per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e676b3dbee6e3a660c76ac613f54b5e",
"text": "Yes, one such strategy is dividend arbitrage using stock and in the money options. You have to find out which option is the most mispriced before the ex-dividend date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcfc24656923521c499bc64b56448b3c",
"text": "\"It's not a ponzi scheme, and it does create value. I think you are confusing \"\"creating value\"\" and \"\"producing something\"\". The stock market does create value, but not in the same way as Toyota creates value by making a car. The stock market does not produce anything. The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public. & The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. Earnings are the in-flow that you are missing here. Business profits DO flow back into the stock market through earnings and dividends. Think about a private company: if it has $100,000 in profits for the year then the company keeps $100,000, but if that same company is publicly traded with 100,000 shares outstanding then, all else being equal, each of those shares went up by $1. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. You can't go to an Apple store and try to pay with a stock certificate, but that doesn't mean the certificate doesn't have value. Using your agriculture example, you wouldn't be able to pay with a basket of tomatoes either. You wouldn't even be able to pay with a lump of gold! We used to do that. It was called the barter system. Companies also do buy shares back from the market using company cash. Although they usually do it through clearing-houses that are capable of moving blocks of 1,000 shares at a time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b246bdaf4503b29d579c9e01389a1e48",
"text": "Apart from investing in their own infrastructure, profits can be spent purchasing other companies, (Mergers and Acquisitions) investing in other securities, and frankly whatever they please. The idea here is that publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make as much money as they can with the resources (including cash, but including so much more than that) available to the company. It happens that the majority of huge companies eventually stopped growing and figured out that they weren't good at making money outside their core discipline and started giving the money back through dividends, but that norm has been eroded by tech companies that have figured out how to keep growing and driving up share prices even after they become giants. Shareholders will pressure management to issue dividends if share prices don't keep going up, but until the growth slows down, most investors hang on and don't rock the boat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84684ca8001220b80db21a461e7b2e21",
"text": "You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "acd8a7913f2befd6deceb28ab90cc67b",
"text": "Honestly, I’m not sure I understand your point. The figures suggest to me that the business invests (higher capex and amortisation) and grows it’s revenues and cash flow. D&A can be higher than new capex for a number of reasons including accelerated amortisation for tax purposes. Why is D&A contribution (actually i prefer to separate the concepts of P&L and cash flow) to operating cash flow a problem or why does it evidence manipulation?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "265d27dfb5d41ee5453592f8dcd0d2bc",
"text": "Its one of the main points. Transfer pricing includes discretionary decisions and is part of BEPS. Its also completely unnecessary: Pay taxes on revenue in country earned/sold. Get tax credits/refunds in country were spending is made. The reason why already profitable companies consider BEPS/tax arbitrage for HQ locations is because they get discretionary power over accounting profit allocation. Tax policy should serve the society though, and this proposal encourages the spending that benefits society. Its the usual case that the right answer is different than that being lobbied for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f842bd669390984b235833aa573c6614",
"text": "In the long term, a P/E of 15-25 is the more 'normal' range. With a 90 P/E, Facebook has to quadruple its earnings to get to normal. It this possible? Yes. Likely? I don't know. I am not a stock analyst, but I love numbers and try to get to logical conclusions. I've seen data that worldwide advertising is about $400B, and US about $100B. If Facebook's profit runs 25% or so and I want a P/E of 20, it needs profit of $5B on sales of $20B (to reconcile its current $100B market cap). No matter what FB growth in sales is, the advertising spent worldwide will not rise or fall by much more than the economy. So with a focus on ads, they would need about 5% of the world market to grow into a comfortable P/E. Flipping this around, if all advertising were 25% profit (a crazy assumption), there are $100B in profit to be had world wide each year, and the value of the companies might total $2T in aggregate. The above is a rambling sharing of the reasonable bounds one might expect in analyzing a stock. It can be used for any otherwise finite market, such as soft drinks. There are only so many people on the planet, and in aggregate, the total soft drink consumption can't exceed, say 6 billion gallons per day. The pie may grow a bit, but it's considered fixed as an order of magnitude. Edit - for what it's worth, as of 8/3/12, the price has dropped significantly, currently $20, and the P/E is showing as 70X. I'm not making any predictions, but the stock needs a combined higher earnings or lower valuation to still approach 'normal.'",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aecb743b3b4ce1da86b2029b6d4bea6",
"text": "what is the mechanism by which they make money on the funds that I have in my account? Risk drives TD Ameritrade to look for profits, Turukawa's storytelling about 100,000$ and 500$ is trivial. The risk consists of credit risk, asset-liability risk and profit risk. The third, based on Pareto Principle, explains the loss-harvesting. The pareto distribution is used in all kind of decentralized systems such as Web, business and -- if I am not totally wrong -- the profit risk is a thing that some authorities require firms to investigate, hopefully someone could explain you more about it. You can visualize the distribution with rpareto(n, shape, scale) in R Statistics -program (free). Wikipedia's a bit populist description: In the financial services industry, this concept is known as profit risk, where 20% or fewer of a company's customers are generating positive income while 80% or more are costing the company money. Read more about it here and about the risk here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91387448bed5117c2724195994ae32b7",
"text": "As more people earn it, the value will dilute to some degree. However, I think for *some* parts of finance, the charter will retain usefulness. I mean, college degrees are *extremely* diluted, but they're still seen as a necessary requirement. I see that happening for PM type of roles. Clearly anywhere it isn't useful now won't see appreciation in that later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "653107501e59e64058ee6d8681000ae3",
"text": "Here is an example for you. We have a fictional company. It's called MoneyCorp. Its job is to own money, and that's all. Right now it owns $10,000. It doesn't do anything special with that $10,000 - it stores it in a bank account, and whenever it earns interest gives it to the shareholders as a dividend. Also, it doesn't have any expenses at all, and doesn't pay taxes, and is otherwise magic so that it doesn't have to worry about distractions from its mathematical perfection. There are 10,000 shares of MoneyCorp, each worth exactly $1. However, they may trade for more or less than $1 on the stock market, because it's a free market and people trading stock on the stock market can trade at whatever price two people agree on. Scenario 1. MoneyCorp wants to expand. They sell 90,000 shares for $1 each. The money goes in the same bank account at the same interest rate. Do the original shareholders see a change? No. 100,000 shares, $100,000, still $1/share. No problem. This is the ideal situation. Scenario 2: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for less than the current price, $0.50 each. Do the original shareholders lose out? YES. It now has something like $55,000 and 100,000 shares. Each share is now worth $0.55. The company has given away valuable equity to new shareholders. That's bad. Why didn't they get more money from those guys? Scenario 3: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for more than the current price, $2 each, because there's a lot of hype about its business. MoneyCorp now owns $190,000 in 100,000 shares and each share is worth $1.90. Existing shareholders win big! This is why a company would like to make its share offering at the highest price possible (think, Facebook IPO). Of course, the new shareholders may be disappointed. MoneyCorp is actually a lot like a real business! Actually, if you want to get down to it, MoneyCorp works very much like a money-market fund. The main difference between MoneyCorp and a random company on the stock market is that we know exactly how much money MoneyCorp is worth. You don't know that with a real business: sales may grow, sales may drop, input prices may rise and fall, and there's room for disagreement - that's why stock markets are as unpredictable as they are, so there's room for doubt when a company sells their stock at a price existing shareholders think is too cheap (or buys it at a price that is too expensive). Most companies raising capital will end up doing something close to scenario 1, the fair-prices-for-everyone scenario. Legally, if you own part of a company and they do something a Scenario-2 on you... you may be out of luck. Consider also: the other owners are probably hurt as much as you are. Only the new shareholders win. And unless the management approving the deal is somehow giving themselves a sweetheart deal, it'll be hard to demonstrate any malfeasance. As an individual, you probably won't file a lawsuit either, unless you own a very large stake in the company. Lawsuits are expensive. A big institutional investor or activist investor of some sort may file a suit if millions of dollars are at stake, but it'll be ugly at best. If there's nothing evil going on with the management, this is just one way that a company loses money from bad management. It's probably not the most important one to worry about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb0927a7b7d0b22ddb6786217aef90d2",
"text": "I don't know what you are asking. Can you give me an example of what fits the question? That you use phrases like profit extraction make me think we have a different assumption base, so I think we have to find common syntactic ground before we can exchange ideas in a meaningful way. I would like to do so, though, so I hope you respond.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62fb28744efe73943158d91328cfc45c",
"text": "Well they do have incentive, the more volume you trade the more they make in commission. The shop is mostly daytrading oriented but you can do whatever you want. From what I gather, alot of their revenue comes in the form of training programs (although they offer one for free when you sign up, mostly in equities) which are completely optional. Also, they're willing to sponsor me for my 7, which is good. I mean this is a super risky career move but you roll the dice when you enter prop trading, in more ways than one.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3e0561bc9a8237aea297eaa57169fa57
|
How to deal with the credit card debt from family member that has passed away?
|
[
{
"docid": "c104b39b8f6f4d822c4c5adb1b61e36b",
"text": "Don't pay it, see a lawyer. Given your comment, it will depend on the jurisdiction on the passing of the house and the presence of a will or lack thereof. In some states all the assets will be inherited by your mom. Debts cannot be inherited; however, assets can be made to stand for debts. This is a tricky situation that is state dependent. In the end, with few assets and large credit card debt, the credit card companies are often left without payment. I would not pay the debt unless your lawyer specifically told you to do so. Sorry for your loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0c395884f356a9dbf7e2bb8583a555c",
"text": "\"First, when a debt collector says, \"\"It's to your advantage to give me money now\"\", I'd take that with a grain of salt. My ex-wife declared bankruptcy and when debt collectors couldn't find her, they somehow tracked me down and told me that I should tell her that it would be to her advantage to pay off this debt before the bankruptcy went through. That was total nonsense of course. The whole point of bankruptcy is to not have to pay the debt. Why would you pay it just before it was wiped off the books? (Now that I think of it, I'm surprised that they didn't tell me that I should pay her debts.) As others have noted, this would be controlled by state law. But in general, when someone dies any debts are payed from the assets of the estate, and then whatever is left goes to the heirs. If nothing is left or the debts exceed the assets, then the heirs get nothing, but they don't have to pay somebody else's debts. I don't see how you could \"\"put the house under your name\"\". If he left the house to you in his will, then after any debts are settled in accordance with state law, the house would transfer to you. But you can't just decide to put the house in your name outside of the legal inheritance process. If you could, then people could undermine a will at any time by just deciding to take an asset left to someone else and \"\"put it in their name\"\". Or as in this case, people could undermine the rights of creditors by transferring all assets to themselves before debts were paid. Even if there's some provision in your state for changing the name on a deed prior to probate to facilitate getting mortgages and taxes paid or whatever, I would be quite surprised if this allowed you to shelter assets from legitimate creditors. It would be a gaping loophole in inheritance law. Frankly, if your father's debts are more than the value of his assets, including the value of the house, I suspect you will not be able to keep the house. It will be sold to pay off the creditors. I would certainly talk to a lawyer about this as there might be some provision in the law that you can take advantage of. I'll gladly yield on this point to anyone with specific knowledge of New Jersey inheritance law.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d64fccb218aa1e292f71b6e3c843f606",
"text": "\"Debts do not inherit to the children. You are absolutely not liable for your parent's debt, in any way whatsoever. ** Collection agents will lie about this; tricking you is their job, and your job is to tell them Heck no, do I look like an idiot? When a person dies, all their personal assets (and debts) go to a fictitious entity called the Estate. This is a holder for the person's assets until they can be dispositioned finally. The estate is managed by a living person, sometimes a company (law firm), called an Executor. Similar to a corporation which is shutting down business, the Executor's job is to act on behalf of the Estate, and in the Estate's best interest (not his own). For instance he can't decide, in his capacity as executor, to give all the estate's money to himself. He has to loyally and selflessly follow state law and any living-trust or wills that may be in place. This role is not for everyone. You can't just decide \"\"la la la, I'm going to live in their house now\"\", that is squatting. The house is an asset and someone inherited that, as dictated by will, trust or state law. That has to be worked out legally. Once they inherit the house, you have to negotiate with them about living there. If you want to live there now, negotiate to rent the house from the estate. This is an efficient way to funnel money into the estate for what I discuss later.** The Estate has assets, and it has debts. Some debts extinguish on the death of the natural person, e.g. student loans, depending on the contract and state law. Did you know corporations are considered a \"\"person\"\"? (that's what Citizens United was all about.) So are estates - both are fictitious persons. The executor can act like a person in that sense. If you have unsecured debt, how can a creditor motivate you to pay? They can annoy and harass you. They can burn your credit rating. Or they can sue you and try to take your assets - but suing is also expensive for them. This is not widely understood, but anyone at any time can go to their creditors and say \"\"Hey creditor, I'm not gonna pay you $10,000. Tough buffaloes. You can sue me, good luck with that. Or, I'll make you a deal. I'll offer you $2000 to settle this debt. What say you? And you'll get one of two answers. Either \"\"OK\"\" or \"\"Nice try, let's try $7000.\"\" If the latter, you start into the cycle of haggling, \"\"3000.\"\" \"\"6000.\"\" \"\"4000.\"\" \"\"5000. \"\"Split the difference, $4500.\"\" \"\"OK.\"\" This is always a one-time, lump sum, one-shot payoff, never partial payments. Creditors will try to convince you to make partial payments. Don't do it. Anyone can do that at any time. Why don't living people do this every day? How about an Estate? Estates are fictitious persons, they don't have a \"\"morality\"\", they have a fiduciary duty. Do they plan on borrowing any more money? Nope. Their credit rating is already 0. They owe no loyalty to USBank. Actually, the executor's fiduciary duty is to get the most possible money for the assets, and settle the debts for the least. So I argue it's unethical to fail to haggle down this debt. If an executor is \"\"not a haggler\"\" or has a moral issue with shortchanging creditors, he is shortchanging the heirs, and he can be sued for that personally - because he has a fiduciary duty to the heirs, not Chase Bank. Like I say, the job is not for everyone. The estate should also make sure to check the paperwork for any other way to escape the debt: does it extinguish on death? Is the debt time-barred? Can they really prove it's valid? Etc. It's not personal, it's business. The estate should not make monthly payments (no credit rating to protect) and should not pay one dime to a creditor except for a one-shot final settlement. Is it secured debt? Let them take the asset. (unless an heir really wants it). When a person dies with a lot of unsecured debt, it's often the case that they don't have a lot of cash lying around. The estate must sell off assets to raise the cash to settle with the creditors. Now here's where things get ugly with the house. ** The estate should try to raise money any other way, but it may have to sell the house to pay the creditors. For the people who would otherwise inherit the house, it may be in their best interest to pay off that debt. Check with lawyers in your area, but it may also be possible for the estate to take a mortgage on the house, use the mortgage cash to pay off the estate's debts (still haggle!), and then bequeath the house-and-mortgage to the heirs. The mortgage lender would have to be on-board with all of this. Then, the heirs would owe the mortgage. Good chance it would be a small mortgage on a big equity, e.g. a $20,000 mortgage on a $100,000 house. Banks love those.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8779fa6f4f4629539801c5890127344b",
"text": "Sorry for your loss. Like others have said Debts cannot be inherited period (in the US). However, assets sometimes can be made to stand for debts. In most cases, credit card debt has no collateral and thus the credit card companies will often either sell the debt to a debt collector or collections agency, sue you for it, or write it off. Collecting often takes a lot of time and money, thus usually the credit card companies just sell the debt, to a debt collector who tries to get you to pay up before the statute of limitations runs out. That said, some credit card companies will sue the debtor to obtain a judgement, but many don't. In your case, I wouldn't tell them of your loss, let em do their homework, and waste time. Don't give them any info,and consult with a lawyer regarding your father's estate and whether his credit card will even matter. Often, unscrupulous debt collectors will say illegal things (per the FDCPA) to pressure anyone related to the debtor to pay. Don't cave in. Make sure you know your rights, and record all interactions/calls you have with them. You can sue them back for any FDCPA infractions, some attorneys might even take up such a case on contingency, i.e they get a portion of the FDCPA damages you collect. Don't pay even a penny. This often will extend or reset the statute of limitations time for the debt to be collectable. i.e Ex: If in your state, the statute of limitations for credit card debt is 3 years, and you pay them $0.01 on year 2, you just bought them 3 more years to be able to collect. TL;DR: IANAL, most credit card debt has no collateral so don't pay or give any info to the debt collectors. Anytime you pay it extends the statute of limitations. Consult an attorney for the estate matters, and if the debt collectors get too aggressive, and record their calls, and sue them back!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e96c600cf2bbbd3c7bced22af642a19d",
"text": "First off, very sorry for your loss. I lost my father a few years ago and I know it can be tough. My father also had a lot of credit card debt. They attempted to collect the debt from my mother, who was no longer on the account (for over a decade). It was just an attempt to recoup as much money as they could before dealing with a probate court. As others have said, it depends on your state law. You will want to talk to a lawyer, figure out who is going to be the executor of the estate, and determine the next steps in starting to settle debts that your father had. If you want to take possession of the house, then you will likely need to work with the executor and perhaps purchase the house from the estate (which would then use the money to pay off debts).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cded02e6d7454ede7d1263fc7d42a885",
"text": "Sorry for your loss. I am not a lawyer and this isn;t legal advice -- which I am not licensed to give. But I've had to deal with some debt situations of my own. I think the worst case scenario is the creditor can get a judgment, but that won't be against you unless you were a co-signor. The collectors are going to prey on your decency to make you feel like you should pay it, but you are under no legal obligation to do so. If they file in court and then win a judgment, they may be able to collect on the assets of the estate. You mention no money but you mention a house. That is an asset with value, and putting it in your name isn't going to do much. You should see a lawyer on this, because it seems logical that they could collect on the value of the house at the time of the death, and even if it was willed to you it can still be attacked to pay the debt. Here is a good write-up on NJ death and debt and whether it can be inherited by the adult children: https://www.atrbklaw.com/bankruptcy-resources/83-articles/103-can-you-inherit-your-dead-parent-s-debts",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df92b37b680f3e6b31e7f3a3039562c0",
"text": "You also might want to see what sort of documentation the credit card company has. Companies can get pretty lazy sometimes about recordkeeping; there have been cases where banks tried to foreclose on a property but weren't able to produce documents establishing the mortgage. With your father dead, is there anything other than the credit card company's word that the debt is valid?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71cb1f4eec4321653132887e08de1218",
"text": "First, if it is in any way a joint account, the debt usually goes to the surviving person. Assets in joint accounts usually have their own instructions on how to disperse the assets; for example, full joint bank accounts usually immediately go to the other name on the account and never become part of the estate. Non-cash assets will likely need to be converted to cash and a fair market valuation shown to the probate court, unless the debts can be paid without using them and they can be transferred to next of kin. If, after that, the deceased has any assets at all, there is usually (varies by state) a legally defined order in which debtor types must be paid. This is handled by probating the estate. There is a period during which you publish a death notice and then wait for debt claims and bills to arrive. Then pay as many as possible based on the priority, and inform the others the holder is deceased and the estate is empty. This sometimes needs to be approved by a judge if the assets are less than the debts. Then disperse remaining assets to next of kin. If there are no assets held by just the deceased, as you get bills you just send a certified copy of the death certificate, tell them there is no estate, then forget about them. A lawyer can really help in determining which need to be paid and to work through probate, which is not simple or cheap. But also note that you can negotiate and sometimes get them to accept less, if there are assets. When my mother died, the doctors treating her zeroed her accounts; the hospitals accepted a much reduced total, but the credit cards wanted 100%.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e286a4b4698d26d497f4deb62bf8b825",
"text": "The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's. However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged. Why? Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even. In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer. However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued. If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it. However I would call and check and get their answer in writing. Why? Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms. Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this. The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero. The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high. This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees. Credit card company wins! I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them. I would also require them to have some financial accountability. Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb21a97ee6426ddc9847c796e9371b2b",
"text": "\"Without knowing what the balances are, I associate \"\"uncomfortable\"\" with high, as in tens of thousands. What I would do: is 1) cut up the cards and stop using them, and 2) have some balance transfer offers in hand the next time you call to negotiate with the companies. Essentially, you will have to convince them that they will have to explain one of two things to their boss: why they lowered your rate or why you left. They can collect less interest from you or no interest from you. It's up to them. If they don't offer you something that's in the ballpark of your balance transfer offer, then bid them goodbye and complete the balance transfer. As far as paying them off, the top two modes of repayment are lowest balance first (aka snowball) or high interest rate first. Both methods are similar in that you pay minimums on all but the method's focus point. Whether it is lowest balance or highest interest rate, you pay ALL of your extra money on the lowest balance or the highest interest debt until it is gone and then you move onto the next one in the list. For what it's worth, I prefer the lowest balance method, you see progress faster.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e79d13cec6a0277e23d61b915ae2a5a",
"text": "If you know the amounts that were combined ($5,000 and $7,500 in your example) -- NOT the original loan amounts necessarily -- then you can calculate a payment schedule (in Excel, Google Sheets, online, etc.) using that amount and the interest rate. You can then apply your payments ($100) to that payment schedule, making sure to either accrue interest if your $100 didn't cover the monthly payment, or pay down extra principal if your $100 more than covered the payment. The outstanding principal is the amount left or remaining balance. A program like GnuCash or Quicken makes doing the payment schedule, and applying payments relatively easy to handle. Spreadsheets will require you to have 36 lines (3 years x 12 months) of payment and recalculation detail, but that shouldn't be too much work. To be fair to your mother, make sure you include any partially accrued interest on the full balance when paying it off. Or even better, include a full month's interest in the pay-off amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f4c9b8ab65f563b1d82e2d953c91b2e",
"text": "\"I started a business a few years ago. At one point it wasn't going so well and my father \"\"loaned\"\" me an amount not too dissimilar to what you've done. From a personal perspective, the moment I took that loan there was a strain the relationship. Especially when I was sometimes late on the interest payments... Unfortunately thoughts like \"\"he doesn't need this right now, but if I don't pay the car loan then that is taken away\"\" came up a few times and paying the interest fell to the bottom of the monthly bill payment stack. At some point my wife and I finally took a hard look at my finances and goals. We got rid of things that simply weren't necessary (car payment, cable tv, etc) and focused on the things we needed to. Doing the same with the business helped out as well, as it helped focus me to to turn things around. Things are now going great. That said, two of my siblings ran into their own financial trouble that our parents helped them on. When this happened my father called us together and basically forgave everyone's debt by an equal amount which covered everything plus wrote a check to the one that was doing fine. This \"\"cleared the air\"\" with regards to future inheritance, questions about how much one sibling was being helped vs another, etc. Honestly, it made family gatherings more enjoyable as all that underlying tension was now gone. I've since helped one of my children. Although I went about it an entirely different way. Rather than loan them money, I gave it to them. We also had a few discussions on how I think they ought to manage their finances and a set of goals to work towards which we co-developed. Bearing in mind that they are an individual and sometimes you can lead a horse... Given the current state of things I consider it money well \"\"spent\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd3db7ba67b69b0a6bb9b5ed64bdbf5b",
"text": "I am sorry for your loss, this person blessed you greatly. For now I would put it in a savings account. I'd use a high yield account like EverBank or Personal Savings from Amex. There are others it is pretty easy to do your own research. Expect to earn around 2200 if you keep it there a year. As you grieve, I'd ask myself what this person would want me to do with the money. I'd arrive at a plan that involved me investing some, giving some, and spending some. I have a feeling, knowing that you have done pretty well for yourself financially, that this person would want you to spend some money on yourself. It is important to honor their memory. Giving is an important part of building wealth, and so is investing. Perhaps you can give/purchase a bench or part of a walkway at one of your favorite locations like a zoo. This will help you remember this person fondly. For the investing part, I would recommend contacting a company like Fidelity or Vanguard. The can guide you into mutual funds that suit your needs and will help you understand the workings of them. As far as Fidelity, they will tend to guide you toward their company funds, but they are no load. Once you learn how to use the website, it is pretty easy to pick your own funds. And always, you can come back here with more questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "62d5c32ad49fc3189ebd8b98819ce212",
"text": "Your relative in the US could buy a pre-paid Visa (aka Visa gift card) and give you the numbers on that to pay. They're available for purchase at many grocery/convenience stores. In most (all??) cases there'll be a fee of a several dollars charged in addition to the face value of the card. The biggest headache I can think of would be that pre-paid cards are generally only available in $25/50/100 increments; unless the current SAT price matches one of the standard increments they'll have to buy the next card size up and then get the remaining money off it in a separate transaction. A grocery store would be one of the easier places for your relative to do this because cashiers there are used to splitting transactions across multiple payment sources (something not true at most other types of business) due to regularly processing transactions partially paid for via welfare benefits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c41b9a53c96d790c841c235e6ad05cd0",
"text": "\"Tough spot. I'm guessing the credit cards are a personal line of credit in their name and not the company's (the fact that the business can be liquidated separately from your parents means they did at least set up an LLC or similar business entity). Using personal debt to save a company that could have just been dissolved at little cost to their personal credit and finances was, indeed, a very bad move. The best possible end to this scenario for you and your parents would be if your parents could get the debt transferred to the LLC before dissolving it. At this point, with the company in such a long-standing negative situation, I would doubt that any creditor would give the business a loan (which was probably why your parents threw their own good money after bad with personal CCs). They might, in the right circumstances, be able to convince a judge to effectively transfer the debt to the corporate entity before liquidating it. That puts the debt where it should have been in the first place, and the CC companies will have to get in line. That means, in turn, that the card issuers will fight any such motion or decision tooth and nail, as long as there's any other option that gives them more hope of recovering their money. Your parents' only prayer for this to happen is if the CCs were used for the sole purpose of business expenses. If they were living off the CCs as well as using them to pay business debts, a judge, best-case, would only relieve the debts directly related to keeping the business afloat, and they'd be on the hook for what they had been living on. Bankruptcy is definitely an option. They will \"\"re-affirm\"\" their commitment to paying the mortgage and any other debts they can, and under a Chapter 13 the judge will then remand negotiations over what total portion of each card's balance is paid, over what time, and at what rate, to a mediator. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is the less damaging form to your parent's credit; they are at least attempting to make good on the debt. A Chapter 7 would wipe it away completely, but your parents would have to prove that they cannot pay the debt, by any means, and have no hope of ever paying the debt by any means. If they have any retirement savings, anything in their name for grandchildren's college funds, etc, the judge and CC issuers will point to it like a bird dog. Apart from that, their house is safe due to Florida's \"\"homestead\"\" laws, but furniture, appliances, clothing, jewelry, cars and other vehicles, pretty much anything of value that your parents cannot defend as being necessary for life, health, or the performance of whatever jobs they end up taking to dig themselves out of this, are all subject to seizure and auction. They may end up just selling the house anyway because it's too big for what they have left (or will ever have again). I do not, under any circumstance, recommend you putting your own finances at risk in this. You may gift money to help, or provide them a place to live while they get back on their feet, but do not \"\"give till it hurts\"\" for this. It sounds heartless, but if you remove your safety net to save your parents, then what happens if you need it? Your parents aren't going to be able to bail you out, and as a contractor, if you're effectively \"\"doing business as\"\" Reverend Gonzo Contracting, you don't have the debt shield your parents had. It looks like housing's faltering again due to the news that the Fed's going to start backing off; you could need that money to weather a \"\"double-dip\"\" in the housing sector over the next few months, and you may need it soon.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ab9b37bdbe052e063bd26366e07b5e9",
"text": "You were approved for the offer based on your current credit, just like any other offer of credit. The offering bank knows you'll likely use their offer if you accept it. If you accept the offer and load up the new card to the max with your (or your relative's) debt and your score will then change. Depending on the other factors that impact your score this could carry some negative consequences related to your own ability to obtain debt. Also, consequently, this will have a tremendously positive effect on your relative's ability to obtain debt. I understand that you trust this person enough to be asking this question. No amount of trust protects from the unforeseen. Ultimately while this debt resides in your name, in the eyes of the creditor it is yours. While you could seek legal remedy from your relative if they don't or can't pay, you will be on the hook to the bank. Again, there are unforeseen events, a car accident, a death, etc. If this person passes, that's your debt. IF (and I can't emphasize the IF enough) I was ever in a position to be considering what you're considering I would do this: I mentioned in a comment under your question. This feels like it would carry a tax consequence (or maybe benefit) to one or both of you. I have no idea of the legalities, or whether or not any of this violates a cardmember agreement, but as other answers have pointed out, I doubt there is a balance transfer police.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6620011e11946352b7885b765e5b2f4",
"text": "\"Assuming by your username that you are Dutch and this concerns invoices under Dutch law, there are a couple of ways to go about it. First of all, we don't have \"\"small claims court\"\" the way the US does. That would make life a lot easier, but we don't. You can go all legal on him and go through court procedures. The first step would probably be the [\"\"kantongerecht\"\"](http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantongerecht) though there are some limitations to what you can do there. You don't need to have a lawyer at the kantongerecht, but chances of fucking up are high if you don't have experience or some experienced help. It's also likely to eat up more of your time than it's worth. And even if you get a favorable judgement there's still the matter of collecting. The second option, which nearly all companies in the Netherlands use, is to turn it over to an \"\"incassoburo\"\" (collections agency). For either a fee or a percentage they'll go after the miscreant, usually tacking that fee onto the money owed so it shouldn't cost you too much. The downside is that, again, they're not always successful if the non-paying person is either extraordinarily obstinate, already in a lot of debt, or if you're looking at him/her/it going bankrupt or being in \"\"schuldhulpverlening\"\" (debt counseling, which in some cases comes with legal protections). The third way, if it's a viable debt but you're willing to take a loss in exchange for money now, is to sell off the debt to a factoring agency. They'll assess it and pay out the open invoice to you, minus costs and/or a percentage depending on how they view their odds of collecting on it. It's then their debt, and they'll go after the original debtor without you ever needing to bother with it again. It's a tough position to be in. I've had to write off some invoices over time, some only a couple'hundred, some in the 5-figure range when a major customer of mine went tits-up. And I just happened to have an interesting conversation yesterday with someone who's more into the commercial side of my line of work. I learned that some relatively big name potential clients are looking more and more like a debt-ridden empty shell, so they went on the list of companies to keep a sharp eye on in case I do business with them. In future cases, keep on top of payment t&c, start reminding (\"\"aanmaning\"\") as soon as they miss their pay-by date as the first documented step towards taking action against them, and if it's a common problem try looking at factoring companies or insurance against non payment. It will cost you some margin, but increase your security.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18f63457e8334538d77a5766629da7ed",
"text": "If this isn't a case where you would be willing to forgive the debt if they can't pay, it's a business transaction, not a friend transaction. Establish exactly what the interest rate will be, what the term of the loan is, whether periodic payments are required, how much is covered by those payments vs. being due at the end of the term as a balloon payment, whether they can make additional payments to reduce the principal early... Get it all in writing and signed by all concerned before any money changes hands. Consider having a lawyer review the language before signing. If the loan is large enough that it might incur gift taxes, then you may want to go the extra distance to make it a real, properly documented, intra-family loan. To do this you must charge (of at least pay taxes on) at least a certain minimal interest rate, and they have to make regular payments (or you can gift them the payments but you still won't up paying tax on the interest income). In this case you definitely want a lawyer to draw up the papers, I think. There are services on the web Antioch specialize in helping to set this up properly, and which offer services such as bookkeeping and monthly billing (aT extra cost) to make it less hassle for the lender. If the loan will be structured as a mortgage on the borrower's house -- making the interest deductible for the borrower in the US -- there are additional forms that need to be filled. The services can help with that too, for appropriate fees. Again, this probably wants experts writing the agreement, to make sure it's properly written for where you and the borrower live. Caveat: all the above is assuming USA. Rules may be very different elsewhere. I've done a formal intractability mortgage -- mostly to avoid gift tax -- and it wasn't too awful a hassle. Your mileage will vary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "147d3f1cc3989a3f208c573d1303da36",
"text": "I recently lent some money to my sister. While I generally agree with Phillip that lending to family and friends should be avoided, I felt I needed to make an exception. She really needed the cash, and my husband and I agreed that we would be ok without it. Here are some guidelines I used that may be helpful to others: In the end, I think lending to family and friends should be avoided, and certainly should not be done lightly, but by communicating clearly and directly, and keeping careful records, I think you can help someone out and still avoid the lingering awkwardness at future Thanksgivings when one person is convinced that the other owes one more payment, and the other swears it was paid in full.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679dd002de68db29b51e24052c1384c2",
"text": "Don't worry about it. One of the big banks who like to whine a lot about defaulting borrowers is sending credit cards to a former resident of my home. The guy died in the late 90s.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b21083a4db2e80d235303fafe596388",
"text": "Generally speaking the bank accounts and credit card accounts remain open. Banks and the credit card companies don't monitor public records on a daily basis. Instead, whoever is handling your estate will need to obtain copies of your death certificate and they will then search your paper records to identify all accounts (reason to get your act together - there are books on the subject). The executor will work with the banks and card companies to make sure all your charges and payments clear (common to have them open for months or even a year) and to make close or transfer autopays. They will make sure to notify the credit agencies to flag your accounts so no new accounts can be created. MANY copies of the death certicates are needed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62f39baa2450b442da29dd911a7f77dc",
"text": "I think you've made a perfectly valid suggestion, and, if your son is struggling somewhat financially now, one that may be very welcome. If you agree to forgive the debt at this time in lieu of a similar amount forgone in future inheritance, it will eliminate the never ending interest-only payments, free up $200+ a month for you son on a tight budget, and improve your own credit score once you pay off the credit line. It's also, in my opinion, a good idea to be open about this in advance with your other children heirs so that everyone will understand what is expected during the eventual probate. My paternal grandfather was the recipient of a great deal of financial largess from his wealthy mother during her life, and it was fully understood by him, her, and his siblings, that in exchange he would not share in her estate when she passed. He didn't, there were no problems, and he and his siblings stayed close for the rest of their lives.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5bf525a4285824b60f3d1a2ab8091a84
|
Student loan payments and opportunity costs
|
[
{
"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": "7f4660e81b6cac0d44cedec2044272b9",
"text": "My recommendation would be to pay off your student loan debt as soon as possible. You mention that the difference between your student loan and the historical, long-term return on the stock market is one-half percent. The problem is, the 7% return that you are counting on from the stock market is not guaranteed. You might get 7% over the next few years, but you also might do much worse. The 6.4% interest that you will save by aggressively paying off your debt is guaranteed. You are concerned about the opportunity cost of paying your debt early. However, this cost is only temporary. By drawing out your debt payments, you have a long-term opportunity cost. By this, I mean that 4 years from now, you could still have 6 years of debt payments hanging over your head, or you could be debt free with all of your income available to save, spend, or invest as you see fit. In my opinion, prolonging debt just to try to come out 0.5% ahead is not worth the hassle or risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f02b70e2127301b9138ff10812ebf62b",
"text": "Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction. There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month. In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan. Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45ffef67391ba0c6ccbc1f34d04b591b",
"text": "\"I'll use similar logic to Dave Ramsey to answer this question because this is a popular question when we're talking about paying off any debt early. Also, consider this tweet and what it means for student loans - to you, they're debt, to the government, they're assets. If you had no debt at all and enough financial assets to cover the cost, would you borrow money at [interest rate] to obtain a degree? Put it in the housing way, if you paid off your home, would you pull out an equity loan/line for a purchase when you have enough money in savings? I can't answer the question for you or anyone else, as you can probably find many people who will see benefits to either. I can tell you two observations I've made about this question (it comes a lot with housing) over time. First, it tends to come up a lot when stocks are in a bubble to the point where people begin to consider borrowing from 0% interest rate credit cards to buy stocks (or float bills for a while). How quickly people forget what it feels (and looks like) when you see your financial assets drop 50-60%! It's not Wall Street that's greedy, it's most average investors. Second, people asking this question generally overlook the behavior behind the action; as Carnegie said, \"\"Concentration is the key to wealth\"\" and concentrating your financial energy on something, instead of throwing it all over the place, can simplify your life. This is one reason why lottery winners don't keep their winnings: their financial behavior was rotten before winning, and simply getting a lot of money seldom changes behavior. Even if you get paid a lot or little, that's irrelevant to success because success requires behavior and when you master the behavior everything else (like money, happiness, peace of mind, etc) follows.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "181b96c6143eceb3a5d75487435a116c",
"text": "\"As Mr. Money Money Mustache once said: IF YOU HAVE CREDIT CARD DEBT, YOU SHOULD FEEL LIKE YOUR HAIR IS ON FIRE Student loan debt is different than credit card debt. Rather than having spent the money on just about anything, it was invested in improving yourself and probably your financial future. This was probably a good decision. However, unlike most credit card debt, if you ever have to file for bankruptcy, your student loans will not be erased. They will follow you forever. Pay your debts off as quickly as you can. While it may be true that \"\"long-term return on the stock market is about 7%\"\", you cannot assume that this will always be the case, especially in the short term. What if you had made this assumption in 2007? To assume that your stocks will beat a 6.4% guaranteed return over the next few years is not really investing. It's gambling.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aec131cdd655f9281eb9842eaf3eec1c",
"text": "\"I bought a house when I was 22, I also had $10k in student load debt. After the down payment, I had $1,500 to my name and $82k worth of debt. All the advice pointed to \"\"pay the minimum payment and invest the rest.\"\" I discarded the advice and scrimped and put everything extra to those bills. I paid it all off by the time I was 31, and now at 34 I'm self employed, have about $110,000 saved up, a house worth $105,000, 2 cars worth a total of $8,000 and no debt. Keep in mind most of those years I was making $24-$30k a year I might have lost out on a couple years of investments, but right now there are no money worries... wouldn't you rather be like that instead of worrying if you might lose your job?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adc62f6f0972b5dc3eb86197c5981b47",
"text": "I agree with the advice given, but I'll add another angle from which to look at it. It sounds like you are already viewing the money used to either pay off the loan early or invest in the market as an investment, which is great. You are wise to think about opportunity cost, but like others pointed out, you are overlooking the risk factor. The way I would look at this is: I could take a guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the loan or a possible 7% return by investing the money. If the risk pays off modestly, all you've done is earned 0.6%, with a huge debt still hanging over you. Personally, I would take the guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the debt, then invest in the stock market. Now this is looking at the investment as a single, atomic pool of money. But you can split it up a bit. Let's say the amount of extra disposable income you want to invest with is $1,000/mo. Then you could pay an extra $500/mo to your student loan and invest the other $500 in the stock market, or do a 400/600 split, or whatever suits your risk tolerance. You mentioned multiple loans and 6.4% is the highest loan. What I would do, based on what I value personally, is put every extra penny into paying off the 6.4% loan because that is high. Once that is done, if the next loan is 4% of less, then split my income between paying extra to it and investing in the market. Remember, with each loan you pay off, the monthly income that previously went to it is now available, and can be used for the next loan or the other goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "238b4afec99f3a2c7537e1b63f7a2661",
"text": "\"If I understand correctly, your question boils down to this: \"\"I have $X to invest over 25 years, are guaranteed returns at a 0.6% lower rate better than what I expect to get from the stock market over the same period?\"\" Well, I believe the standard advice would go something like: Rational investors pay a premium to reduce risk/volatility. Or, put another way, guaranteed returns are more valuable than risky returns, all things equal. I don't know enough about student loans in America (I'm Australian). Here a student loan is very low interest and the minimum repayments scale with what you earn not what you owe, starting at $0 for a totally liveable wage - Here I'd say there's a case to just pay the minimum and invest extra money elsewhere. If yours is a private loan though, following the same rules as other loans, remember the organisation extending your loan has access to the stock market too! why would they extend a loan to you on worse terms than they would get by simply dumping money into an index fund? Is the organisation that extends student loans a charity or subsidised in some way? If not, someone has already built a business on the the analysis that returns at 6.4% (including defaults) beats the stock market at 7% in some way. What I would put back to you though, is that your question oversimplifies what is likely your more complex reality, and so answering your question directly doesn't help that much to make a persuasive case - It's too mathematical and sterile. Here are some things off the top of my head that your real personal circumstances might convince you to pay off your loan first, hit up Wall Street second:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea8a474b4d948ac0a762c22defdb91a6",
"text": "The only real consideration I would give to paying off the debt as slowly as possible is if inflation were much higher than it is now. If you had a nice medium to low interest (fixed rate) loan, like yours, and then inflation spiked to 7-8%, for example, then you're better off not paying it now because it's effectively making you money (and then when inflation calms back down, you pay it off with your gains). However, with a fairly successful and active Federal Reserve being careful to avoid inflation spikes, it seems unlikely that will occur during your time owing this debt - and certainly isn't anywhere near that point now. Make sure you're saving some money not for the return but for the safety net (put it in something very safe), and otherwise pay off your debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69064f4bfc9e28329b6ce9104c70f988",
"text": "\"Already a lot of great answers, but since I ask myself this same question I thought I'd share my 2 cents. As @user541852587 pointed out, behavior is of the essence here. If you're like most recent grads, this is probably the first time in your life you are getting serious about building wealth. Can you pay your loans down quickly and then have the discipline to invest just as much -- if not more -- than you were putting towards your loans? Most people are good at paying bills in full and on time, yet many struggle to \"\"pay themselves\"\" in full and on time. As @Brandon pointed out, you can do both. I find this makes a great deal of practical sense. It helps form good behaviors, boosts confidence, and \"\"diversifies\"\" those dollars. I have been paying double payments on my student loans while at the same time maxing out my IRA, HSA, & 401k. I also have a rental property (but that's another can of worms). I'm getting on top and feeling confident in my finances, habits, etc. and my loans are going down. With each increase in pay, I intend to pay the loans down faster than I invest until they're paid off. Again -- I like the idea of doing both.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d5eb3828d5cad0bb6084f28b4bec7086",
"text": "I agree that college doesn't or shouldn't have to be all about job prep. However, the caveat I will add is that if you go into DEBT for your education, you should certainly be thinking about the economic value your education can provide you. The last point about subsidized college being cheaper than the current system.. I don't know.. I'd have to see these reports you speak of, and who made them, and for what incentive. At the end of the day though, these findings are all moot unless we can have a conversation about the hyperinflation in college costs directly related to 'free' aka subsidized education.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab0b002019998dadfd61f5d5231a3e07",
"text": "Excellent question and it is a debate that is often raised. Mathematically you are probably best off using option #1. Any money that is above and beyond minimum payments earns a pretty high interest rate, about 6.82% in the form of saved interest payments. The problem is you are likely to get discouraged. Personal finance is a lot about behavior, and after working at this for a year, and still having 5 loans, albeit a lower balance, might take a bit of fight out of you. Paying off such a large balance, in a reasonable time, will take a lot of fight. With the debt snowball, you pay the minimum to the student loan, save in an outside account, and when it is large enough, you execute option #2. So a year from now you might only have three loans instead of five. If you behaved exactly the same your balance would be higher after that year then using the previous method. However often one does not behave the same. Because the goals are shorter and more attainable it is easier to delay some gratification. The 8 dollars you are saving in your weekly gas budget, because of low prices, is meaningful when saving for a 4K goal, where it is meaningless when looking at it as a 74K goal. With the 4K goal you are more apt to put that money in your savings, where the 74K goal you might spend it on a latte. For me, the debt snowball worked really well. With either option make sure that excess payments actually go to a reduction in principle not a prepayment of interest. Given this you may be left with no option. For example if method #1 you only prepay interest, you are forced to use option #2.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49e9a01c74b4a5f021796aee71d6cfc4",
"text": "Actually, a few lenders now will offer a consolidation loan that will consolidate both Federal and private student loans. One example is Cedar Ed, http://cedaredlending.com/PrivateConsolidationLoan.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8143e59701da827051bb11538170aa2e",
"text": "Hi guys, have a question from my uni finance course but I’m unsure how to treat the initial loan (as a bond, or a bill or other, and what the face value of the loan is). I’ll post the question below, any help is appreciated. “Hi guys, I have a difficult university finance question that’s really been stressing me out.... “The amount borrowed is $300 million and the term of the debt credit facility is six years from today The facility requires minimum loan repayments of $9 million in each financial year except for the first year. The nominal rate for this form of debt is 5%. This intestest rate is compounded monthly and is fixed from the date the facility was initiated. Assume that a debt repayment of $10 million is payed on 31 August 2018 and $9million on April 30 2019. Following on monthly repayments of $9 million at the end of each month from May 31 2019 to June 30 2021. Given this information determine the outstanding value of the debt credit facility on the maturity date.” Can anyone help me out with the answer? I’ve been wracking my brain trying to decide if I treat it as a bond or a bill.” Thanks in advance,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46b990bd8697459f7756d5e3f0c2227e",
"text": "I wasn't 100% on which columns of the scale you were referring to, but think I captured the correct ones in this comparison, using the scale for BA and MA (MA scale starting 2 years later, with decreased income reflected for first two years), applying a 1% cost of living increase each year to the scale or to prior year after the scale maxes out and assuming you borrow 40k and repay years 3-10, then the difference and cumulative difference between each scenario: So it would be about 16 years to start coming out ahead, but this doesn't account for the tax deduction of student loan interest. Some things in favor of borrowing for a MA, there are loan forgiveness programs for teachers, you might only make 5-years of minimum payments before having the remainder forgiven if you qualify for one of those programs. Not sure how retirement works for teachers in WA, but in some states you can get close to your maximum salary each year in retirement. Additionally, you can deduct student loan interest without itemizing your tax return, so that helps with the cost of the debt. Edit: I used a simple student loan calculator, if you financed the full 40k at 6% you'd be looking at $444 monthly payments for 10 years, or $5,328/year (not calculating the tax deduction for loan interest).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f85e13b9c2caab8271e436ba28db873d",
"text": "Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? A concern I see is the variable rate loans. Do you understand the maximum rate they can get to? At this time those rates are low, but if you are going to put funds against the highest rate loan, make sure the order doesn't change without you noticing it. What is a good mode of attack here? The best mode of attack is to pay off the one with the highest rate first by paying more than the minimum. When that is done roll over the money you were paying for that loan to the next highest. Note if a loan balance get to be very low, you can put extra funds against this low balance loan to be done with it. Investigate loan forgiveness programs. The federal government has loan forgiveness programs for certain job positions, if you work for them for a number of years. Some employers also have these programs. What are the payoff dates for the other loans? My inexact calculations put a bunch in about 2020 but some as late as 2030. You may need to talk to your lender. They might have a calculator on their website. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Some loans are subsidized by the federal government. This covers the interest while the student is still in school. Non-subsidized federal loans and private loans don't have this feature, so their balance can grow while the student is in school.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9da32b85dcc4f1ec2176174ada19620e",
"text": "There are many ways to temper the dollar burden of an education. Your question has very little information, so I am going to assume the following: You are attending a University in the United States, you are paying for school with a combination of loans, scholarships, gifts, and your own income, and that you are a typical (socially) 18-22 year old male/female. Tuition Food Alcohol and Social Activities Books Room/Board/Transportation Income (I don't have as much advice here, someone else will need to chime in)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48e172018af2cc2e1a44b4248cd90b52",
"text": "Lets pretend that your parents were given the opportunity to pay X for a year of college tuition in the year that you were born. That would have been a significant portion of their yearly income. But what if they were given the opportunity to pay for that year of college when you are 18, but at the price it was when you were born. That tuition bill would be much easier to pay. That would be a very small amount of their yearly income. Why? the cost of tuition grew at a high inflation rate, but the second option allowed them to skip inflation on the bill side, but keep inflation regarding wages. You asked about paying for stuff you want today with future money; where my example was to pay new money for old expenses. If you believe that inflation will be high,and your income will keep up with it; it is advantageous to pay with future $'s",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5979df35b8e180bdb36a688c8a683794",
"text": "You might try to refinance some of those loans. It sounds like you are serious about minimizing interest expense, if you think you will be able to pay those loans in full within five years you might also try a loan that is fixed for five years before becoming variable. If you do not think you can repay the loans in full before that time, you should probably stick with the fixed rates that you have. It may even be profitable to refinance those loans through another lender at the exact same fixed rate because it gets around their repayment tricks that effectively increase your interest on those two smaller loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70871e94302038a1d3b12f2603dde00f",
"text": "\"It appears you can elect to classify some or all of your scholarship money as taxable. If you do this, you would be deemed to have used the scholarship funds for non-deductible purposes (e.g., room and board), and you could be eligible to claim the American opportunity credit based on the money you used to pay for the tuition out of your own pocket. I found this option in the section of Publication 970 about \"\"Coordination with Pell grants and other scholarships\"\", specifically example 3: The facts are the same as in Example 2—Scholarship excluded from income [i.e., Bill receives a $5600 scholarship and paid $5600 for tuition]. If, unlike Example 2, Bill includes $4,000 of the scholarship in income, he will be deemed to have used that amount to pay for room and board. The remaining $1,600 of the $5,600 scholarship will reduce his qualified education expenses and his adjusted qualified education expenses will be $4,000. Bill's AGI will increase to $34,000, his taxable income will increase to $24,250, and his tax before credits will increase to $3,199. Based on his adjusted qualified education expenses of $4,000, Bill would be able to claim an American opportunity tax credit of $2,500 and his tax after credits would be $699. You can only reclassify income in this way to the extent that your scholarship allows you to use that money for nonqualified expenses (such as room and board). You should carefully check the terms of the scholarship to determine whether it allows this. The brief paragraph you cite from the Palmetto fellowship document is not totally clear on this point (at least to my eye). You might want to ask the fellowship administrators if there are restrictions on how they money may be used. In addition, I would be cautious about attempting to do this unless you actually did pay for the nonqualified expenses yourself, so you can treat the money as fungible. If, for instance, your parents paid for your room and board, it's not clear whether you could legitimately claim that you used the scholarship money to pay for that, since you didn't pay for it at all (although in this case your parents could possibly be able to claim the AOC themselves). I mention this because you say in your question that you \"\"only used the scholarship for tuition and fees\"\". I'm not sure how exactly you meant that, but it seems from the example cited above that, in order to claim the scholarship as taxable income, you have to actually have nonqualified expenses which you can say you paid for with the scholarship. (Also, of course, you had to actually receive the money yourself. If the scholarship money was given directly to your school as payment of tuition, then you never had any ability to use it for anything else.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d451afa068fba7cee2fe211e4678508",
"text": "Depending on the student loan, this may be improper usage of the funds. I know the federal loans I received years ago were to be used for education related expenses only. I would imagine most, if not all, student loans would have the same restrictions. Bonus Answer: You must have earned income to contribute to an IRA (e.g. money received from working (see IRS Publication 590 for details)). So, if your earmarked money is coming from savings only, then you would not be eligible to contribute. As far as whether you can designate student loans for the educational expenses and then used earned income for an IRA I would imagine that is fine. However, I have not found any documentation to support my assumption.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e68a7f16bbbafd367c5aa932c0fa551",
"text": "The short answer is that you can use student loans for living expenses. Joe provides a nice taxonomy of loans. I would just add that some loans are not only guaranteed, but also subsidized. Essentially the Government buys down the rate of the loan. The mechanics are that a financial aid package might consist of grants, work study (job), subsidized, and guaranteed loans. One can turn down one or more of the elements of the package. All will be limited in some form. The work study will have a maximum number of hours and generally has low pay. Many find better deals working in the businesses surrounding the college or starting their own services type business. The grants rarely cover the full cost of tuition and books. The loans will both be limited in amount. It mainly depends on what you qualify for, and generally speaking the lower the income the more aid one qualifies for. Now some students use all their grant, all their loan money and buy things that are not necessary. For example are you going to live in the $450/month dorm, or the new fancy apartments that are running $800/month? Are you going to use the student loan money to buy a car? Will it be a new BMW or a 8 year old Camary? I see this first hand as I live near a large university. The pubs are filled with college students, not working, but drinking and eating every night. Many of them drive very fancy cars. The most onerous example of this is students at the military academies. Attendees have their books and tuition completely paid for. They also receive a stipend, and more money can be earned over the summer. They also all qualify for a 35K student loan in their junior year. Just about every kid, takes this loan. Most of those use the money to buy a car. I know a young lady who did exactly that, and so did many of her friends. So kids with a starting pay of 45K also start life with a 35K. Buying a nice car in the military is especially silly as they cannot drive it while deployed and they are very likely to be deployed. At least, however, they are guaranteed a starting job with a nice starting pay, and upward potential. College kids who behave similarly might not have it as good. Will they even find work? Will the job have the ability to move up? How much security is in the job? One might say that this does not apply to engineers and such, but I am working with a fellow with a computer science degree who cannot find a job and has not worked in the past 6 months. This even though the market is super hot right now for computer engineers. So, in a word, be very careful what you borrow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4b02dc1399ac958d79cd4f2b20e5a4c",
"text": "Considering I'm in a nearly identical situation, I'll speak to my personal strategy and maybe there's some value for you as well. You have ~$22k in loans, which you say you could pay off today. So, what I read is that you're sitting there with a $22k investment and want to know which investment to make: pay down debt, invest in yourself/start up, or some variation between those options. Any investor worth his salt will ask a couple of questions: what is my risk, and what is my gain? Paying off your student loans offers no financial risk at the cost of opportunity risk, and gains you returns of 3.4%, 6.8%, 3.4%, 4.5%, and 6.8%. Those percentage gains are guaranteed and the opportunity risk is unknown. Investing in a startup is inherently risky, with the potential for big payoffs. But with this investment, you are accepting a lot of risk for potentially some gain (it could be the next Apple, it could also fail). So, with your situation (like mine), I'd say it's best to accept the easy investment for now and fully vet out your tech start up idea in the meantime.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ad260835a0873e58ea782221470c88e",
"text": "\"Assuming the numbers in your comments are accurate, you have $2400/month \"\"extra\"\" after paying your expenses. I assume this includes loan payments. You said you have $3k in savings and a $2900 \"\"monthly nut\"\", so only one month of living expenses in savings. In my opinion, your first goal should be to put 100% of your extra money towards savings each month, until you have six months of living expenses saved. That's $2,900 * 6 or $17,400. Since you have $3K already that means you need $14,400 more, which is exactly six months @ $2,400/month. Next I would pay off your $4K for the bedroom furniture. I don't know the terms you got, but usually if you are not completely paid off when it comes time to pay interest, the rate is very high and you have to pay interest not just going forward, but from the inception of the loan (YMMV--check your loan terms). You may want to look into consolidating your high interest loans into a single loan at a lower rate. Barring that, I would put 100% of my extra monthly income toward your 10% loan until its paid off, and then your 9.25% loan until that's paid off. I would not consider investing in any non-tax-advantaged vehicle until those two loans (at minimum) were paid off. 9.25% is a very good guaranteed return on your money. After that I would continue the strategy of aggressively paying the maximum per month toward your highest interest loans until they are all paid off (with the possible exception of the very low rate Sallie Mae loans). However, I'm probably more conservative than your average investor, and I have a major aversion to paying interest. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5117ae499bb638cb572adcbf65bef376",
"text": "Thanks for explaining added value - I do not think professors are much, if any part of the problem, it really does come down to cost in my eyes. Year over year costs go up. As a country we are pricing ourselves out of education. It will continue to create disparity and eventually you will have a large segment of the population saying no way on college (I can get a lot of free courseware on edx.org and other sites). As numbers drop colleges are going to be hard pressed to really make money. I often ponder what that money is spent for. I know a chunk goes to sports and other not necessarily academic activities. I have advocated for years to people who cannot afford to go to a 4yr college to attend community college, get an Associates and make their decision from there. With exception of the Ivy league schools I do not think there is enough value in 4 yr degree's in the job market. I am in IT and the number of people I have worked with who have had degrees since the early days of my career has dropped greatly. Many of them had non-computer degrees and jumped job fields to fill gaps early on. Just my two cents. I really believe that most professors are not the problem (unless they are paid huge sums and even that's dependent on a lot of things)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
73ef4b0046ba5159fb1521766adfc8ee
|
Is it true that more than 99% of active traders cannot beat the index?
|
[
{
"docid": "a138eba53b94d8218782106dd88a7a6e",
"text": "What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1049121ec177abfc5cd10991f71b76c",
"text": "Obviously, these numbers can never be absolute simply because not all the information is public. Any statistic will most likely be biased. I can tell you the following from my own experience that might get you closer in your answer: Hence, even though I cannot give you exact numbers, I fully agree that traders cannot beat the index long term. If you add the invested time and effort that is necessary to follow an active strategy, then the equation looks even worse. Mind you, active trading and active asset allocation (AAA) are two very different things. AAA can have a significant impact on your portfolio performance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d551a112c05e7e4ad3cf68a202c506dc",
"text": "That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7cd5e8af0b5545ab3beca350d62578d0",
"text": "Yes an index is by definition any arbitrary selection. In general, to measure performance there are 2 ways: By absolute return - meaning you want a positive return at all times ie. 10% is good. -1% is bad. By relative return - this means beating the benchmark. For example, if the benchmark returns -20% and your portfolio returns -10%, then it has delivered +10% relative returns as compared to the benchmark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25ecfa8f3c795681212ee83de19234fc",
"text": "Private investors as mutual funds are a minority of the market. Institutional investors make up a substantial portion of the long term holdings. These include pension funds, insurance companies, and even corporations managing their money, as well as individuals rich enough to actively manage their own investments. From Business Insider, with some aggregation: Numbers don't add to 100% because of rounding. Also, I pulled insurance out of household because it's not household managed. Another source is the Tax Policy Center, which shows that about 50% of corporate stock is owned by individuals (25%) and individually managed retirement accounts (25%). Another issue is that household can be a bit confusing. While some of these may be people choosing stocks and investing their money, this also includes Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) and company founders. For example, Jeff Bezos owns about 17% of Amazon.com according to Wikipedia. That would show up under household even though that is not an investment account. Jeff Bezos is not going to sell his company and buy equity in an index fund. Anyway, the most generous description puts individuals as controlling about half of all stocks. Even if they switched all of that to index funds, the other half of stocks are still owned by others. In particular, about 26% is owned by institutional investors that actively manage their portfolios. In addition, day traders buy and sell stocks on a daily basis, not appearing in these numbers. Both active institutional investors and day traders would hop on misvalued stocks, either shorting the overvalued or buying the undervalued. It doesn't take that much of the market to control prices, so long as it is the active trading market. The passive market doesn't make frequent trades. They usually only need to buy or sell as money is invested or withdrawn. So while they dominate the ownership stake numbers, they are much lower on the trading volume numbers. TL;DR: there is more than enough active investment by organizations or individuals who would not switch to index funds to offset those that do. Unless that changes, this is not a big issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eea837f2962ad63b6cc13e0c938fd84a",
"text": "Support and resistance only works as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone trading that stock agrees there's a resistance at so-and-so level, and it is on such-and-such scale, then they will trade accordingly and there will really be a support or resistance. So while you can identify them at any time scale (although as a rule the time scale on which you observed them should be similar to the time scale on which you intend to use them), it's no matter unless that's what all the other traders are thinking as well. Especially if there are multiple possible S/P levels for different time scales, there will be no consensus, and the whole system will break down as one cohort ruins the other group's S/P by not playing along and vice versa. But often fundamentals are expected to dominate in the long run, so if you are thinking of trades longer than a year, support and resistance will likely become meaningless regardless. It's not like that many people can hold the same idea for that long anyhow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d9775c0ff085d4d7023a275e8706142",
"text": "\"A huge amount of money in all financial markets is from institutional investors, such as mutual funds, government pension plans, sovereign wealth funds, etc. For various reasons these funds do all of their trading at the end of the day. They care primarily that their end-of-day balances are in line with their targets and are easy to audit and far less about \"\"timing the market\"\" for the best possible trades. So, if you're looking at a stock that is owned by many institutional investors -- such as a stock (like AAPL) that makes up a significant portion of an index that many funds track -- there will be a huge amount of activity at this time relative to stocks that are less popular among institutions. Even just in its introduction this paper (PDF) gives a fair overview of other reasons why there's a lot of trading at end-of-day in general. (In fact, because of all this closing activity and the reliance on end-of-day prices as signposts for financial calculations, the end-of-day has for decades been the single most fraud-ridden time of the trading day. Electronic trading has done away with a lot of the straight-up thievery that floor traders and brokers used to get away with at the expense of the public, but it still exists. See, for example, any explanation of the term banging the close, or the penalties against 6 banks just last month for manipulating the FX market at the close.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77f40b3209aec2de9ea6811bdedc2815",
"text": "Focusing on options, many people and companies use them to mitigate risk(hedge) When used as a hedge the objective is not to win big, it is to create a more predictable outcome. Option traders win big by consistenly structuring trades with a high probability of success. In this way, they take 100 and turn it into 1000 with 100 small trades with a target profit of $10/trade. Although options are a 'zero sum' game, a general theory among options traders is the stock market only has a 54-56 probability of profit(PoP) - skewed from 50-50 win/loss because the market tends to go up over a long time frame. Using Option trading strategies strategically, you have more control over PoP and you can set yourself up to win whether the security goes up/down/sideways. A quick and dirty measure of PoP is an options' delta. If the delta on a call option is 19, there is roughly a 19% chance your option will be in the money at expiration - or a 19% chance of hitting a home run and multiplyimg your money. If the delta is 68, there is a 68% chance of a profitable trade or getting on base. There are more variables to this equation, but I hope this clearly explains the essence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9",
"text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6cebd35e0d7b2223ba9bbf6ab880406",
"text": "Backstory (since I've never submitted a link before and don't know how to write a paragraph up there): I work as an analyst intern at a small RIA and this paper has been mentioned a few times. What do you guys think? What are the managers that actually CAN outperform benchmarks doing that most (~2/3) can't?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13d54dbd5a6b33f419ebeafe4f977782",
"text": "\"I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part. But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the \"\"fundamental index\"\" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think \"\"beating the market\"\" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying \"\"you can't beat the market so buy the index\"\" or Greenblatt saying \"\"here's how to beat the market with this strategy,\"\" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an \"\"index hugger,\"\" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a \"\"moat\"\" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15eea65830ec471dbb2b7d7acf7f652a",
"text": "No. As long as you are sensible, an average person can make money on the stock market. A number of my investments (in Investment trusts) over the last 10 yeas have achieved over 200%. You're not going to turn $1000 into a million but you can beat cash. I suggest reading the intelligent investor by Graham - he was Warren Buffet's mentor",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1492fef953735b5f6997e04a1d5492e",
"text": "\"The professional financial advisors do have tools which will take a general description of a portfolio and run monte-carlo simulations based on the stock market's historical behavior. After about 100 simulation passes they can give a statistical statement about the probable returns, the risk involved in that strategy, and their confidence in these numbers. Note that they do not just use the historical data or individual stocks. There's no way to guarantee that the same historical accidents would have occurred that made one company more successful than another, or that they will again. \"\"Past performance is no guarantee of future results\"\"... but general trends and patterns can be roughly modelled. Which makes that a good fit for those of us buying index funds, less good for those who want to play at a greater level of detail in the hope of doing better. But that's sorta the point; to beat market rate of return with the same kind of statistical confidence takes a lot more work.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b809e27c7650e4615cd9a31b7744ab4f",
"text": "From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe940f93051087ade962c2d903cb6d8e",
"text": "In my opinion, the ability to set a sell or buy price is the least of my concerns. Your question of whether to choose individual stocks vs funds prompts a different issue for me to bring to light. Choosing stocks that beat the market is not simple. In fact, a case can be made for the fact that the average fund lags the market by more and more over time. In the end, conceding that fact and going with the lowest cost funds or ETFs will beat 90% of investors over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e4f01017045a7b9ef74ebae91eacf5a",
"text": "\"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "7da17d5be6aabf802964420172f6efc5",
"text": "\"Sure they work - right until they don't. Explanation: A stock picking strategy based on technical indicators is at worst a mix of random guessing and confirmation bias, which will \"\"work\"\" only due to luck. At best, it exploits a systematic inefficiency of the market. And any such inefficiency will automatically disappear when it is exploited by many traders. If it's published in a book, it is pretty much guaranteed not to work anymore. Oh, and you only get to know in hindsight (if at all) which of the two cases above applies to any given strategy.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ac42a869124e378c415d27fe44eab47b
|
Switching Roth IRA ( from American Funds to Vanguard)
|
[
{
"docid": "56c0eb30c722c9f3e6541bf13bab17b2",
"text": "\"You can have as many IRA accounts as you want (whether Roth or Traditional), so you can have a Roth IRA with American Funds and another Roth IRA with Vanguard if you like. One disadvantage of having too many IRA accounts with small balances in each is that most custodians (including Vanguard) charge an annual fee for maintaining IRA accounts with small balances but waive the fee if the balance is large. So it is best to keep your Roth IRA in just one or two funds with just one or two custodians until such time as investment returns plus additional contributions made over the years makes the balances large enough to diversify further. Remember also that you cannot contribute the maximum to each IRA; the sum total of all your IRA contributions (doesn't matter whether to Roth or to Traditional IRAs) for any year must satisfy the limit for that year. You can move money from one IRA of yours to another IRA (of the same type) of yours without any tax issues to worry about. Such movements (called rollovers or transfers) are not contributions and do not count towards the annual contribution limit. The easiest way to do move money from one IRA account to another IRA account is by a trustee-to-trustee transfer where the money goes directly from one custodian (American Funds in this case) to the other custodian (Vanguard in this case). The easiest way of accomplishing this is to call Vanguard or go online on their website, tell them that you are wanting to establish a Roth IRA with them, and that you want to fund it by transferring money held in a Roth IRA with American Funds. Give Vanguard the account number of your existing American Funds IRA, tell them how much you want to transfer over -- $1000 or $20,000 or the entire balance as the case may be -- and tell Vanguard to go get the money. In a few days' time, the money will appear in your new Vanguard Roth IRA and the American Funds Roth IRA will have a smaller balance, possibly a zero balance, or might even be closed if you told Vanguard to collect the entire balance. DO NOT approach American Funds and tell them that you want to transfer money to a new Roth IRA with Vanguard: they will bitch and moan and drag their heels about doing so because they are unhappy to lose your business, and will probably screw up the transfer. Talk to Vanguard only. They are eager to get their hands on your IRA money and will gladly take care of the whole thing for you at no charge to you. DO NOT cash in any stock shares, or mutual fund shares, or whatever is in your Roth IRA in preparation for \"\"cashing out of the old account\"\". There is a method where you take a \"\"rollover distribution\"\" from your American Funds Roth IRA and then deposit the money into your new Vanguard Roth IRA within 60 days, but I recommend most strongly against using this because too many people manage to screw it up. It is 60 days, not two months; the clock starts from the day American Funds cuts your check, not when you get the check, and it is stopped when the money gets deposited into your new account, not the day you mailed the check to Vanguard or the day that Vanguard received it, and so on. In short, DO NOT try this at home: stick to a trustee-to-trustee transfer and avoid the hassles.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9c9a51e5fc757203e1ef1b4fef08b15b",
"text": "\"You can definitely open an IRA and roll the money over. I suggest instead of trying opening online calling the institution and asking what would be the procedure in your specific case. If not, I will have to cash out my 401K. Who do I contact to find out if my country has some sort of deal with the US in regards to taxes? I would of course prefer to not pay the penalty (20 % federal + 10 % state tax), and instead reinvest the money in a retirement fund in my country. US embassies some times have listings of tax advisers who work with US expats in the countries they cover. You can check for such a list on the website of your local US embassy. These people will be able to answer this question. However it is highly unlikely that you'll be able to avoid the tax and penalty in the US in this scenario. It is not likely that you could \"\"roll-over\"\" into a foreign retirement fund (from your country's laws perspective), but maybe your country has some solution for this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45f8de6c19c1a6d3018d689e67f880b5",
"text": "What you want is a position transfer, likely by ACATS. This is a transfer from one IRA to another without having to liquidate positions to do so. In effect, the brokerage firm is just transferring records from your existing IRA to your new IRA. You will need to watch out to make sure your new IRA account can hold your positions for this to work. For example, some brokerages allow you to hold fractional shares but others don't. (The fractional share amounts would be sold automatically prior to transfer.) Another example might be different fund families could be allowed between different brokerages. The general process is open your new IRA account, initiate the ACATS xfer from your new account, your old IRA account brokerage sends the positions over, and after a week or so your new IRA brokerage notifies you that everything is transferred. I've switched IRAs a couple times via this mechanism and never been charged a fee, but I've always stuck with the larger brokerages like Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and Interactive Brokers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b26bcc40706eb82029e20bc392a9ae57",
"text": "Since you're 20-30 years out of retirement, you should be 90% to 100% in stocks, and in one or two broad stock market funds likely. I'm not sure about the minimums at TD Ameritrade, but at Vanguard even $3k will get you into the basic funds. One option is the Targeted Retirement Year funds, which automatically rebalance as you get closer to retirement. They're a bit higher expense usually than a basic stock market fund, but they're often not too bad. (Look for expenses under 0.5% annually, and preferably much lower - I pay 0.05% on mine for example.) Otherwise, I'd just put everything into something simple - an S&P500 tracker for example (SPY or VOO are two examples) that has very low management fees. Then when your 401(k) gets up and running, that may have fewer options and thus you may end up in something more conservative - don't feel like you have to balance each account separately when they're just starting, think of them as one whole balancing act for the first year or two. Once they're each over $10k or so, then you can balance them individually (which you do want to do, to allow you to get better returns).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4abdf55b8e3aee2b6ddfaed7e3f5b5ee",
"text": "Your biggest concern will be what happens during the transition period. In the past when my employer made a switch there has been a lockout period where you couldn't move money between funds. Then over a weekend the money moved from investment company A to investment Company B. All the moves were mapped so that you knew which funds your money would be invested in, then staring Monday morning you could switch them if you didn't like the mapping. No money is lost because the transfer is actually done in $'s. Imagine both investment companies had the same S&P 500 fund, and that the transfer takes a week. If when the first accounts are closed the S&P500 fund has a share value of $100 your 10 hares account has a value of $1000. If the dividend/capital gains are distributed during that week; the price per share when the money arrives in the second investment company will now be $99. So that instead of 10 shares @ $100 you now will buy 10.101 shares @ $99. No money was lost. You want that lookout period to be small, and you want the number of days you are not invested in the market to be zero. The lockout limits your ability to make investment changes, if for instance the central bank raises rates. The number of days out of the market is important if during that period of time there is a big price increase, you wouldn't want to miss it. Of course the market could also go lower during that time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "52456dcf90b012d6a5124b3306c93288",
"text": "I wrote an article about this a while ago with detailed instructions, so I'll link to it here. Here's a snippet about how to use the Roth IRA loophole and report it properly: You don’t have any Traditional/Rollover IRA at all. You deposit up to the yearly maximum (currently $5500) into a traditional IRA. In your case, you re-characterized, which means you essentially deposited. The fact that it lost money may help you later if you have extra amounts in Traditional IRA. You convert your traditional IRA to become Roth IRA ($5500 change designation from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA). You fill IRS form 8606 and attach it to your yearly tax return, no tax due. You have a fully funded Roth IRA account. If you have amounts in the Traditional IRA in excess to what you contributed last year - it becomes a bit more complicated and you need to prorate. See my article for a detailed example. On the form 8606 you fill the numbers as they are. You deposited to IRA 5500, you converted 5100, your $400 loss is lost (unless you have more money in IRA from elsewhere). If you completely distribute your IRA, you can deduct the $400 on your Schedule A, if you itemize.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e710be66cacaa43a6b7e4b7df6033b02",
"text": "Yes, each of Vanguard's mutual funds looks only at its own shares when deciding to upgrade/downgrade the shares to/from Admiral status. To the best of my knowledge, if you hold a fund in an IRA as well as a separate investment, the shares are not totaled in deciding whether or not the shares are accorded Admiral shares status; each account is considered separately. Also, for many funds, the minimum investment value is not $10K but is much larger (used to be $100K a long time ago, but recently the rules have been relaxed somewhat).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b094f1270094c90abc105c28a7c6899d",
"text": "I know in the instance that if my MAGI exceeds a certain point, I can not contribute the maximum to the Roth IRA; a traditional IRA and subsequent backdoor is the way to go. My understanding is that if you ever want to do a backdoor Roth, you don't want deductible funds in a Traditional account, because you can't choose to convert only the taxable funds. From the bogleheads wiki: If you have any other (non-Roth) IRAs, the taxable portion of any conversion you make is prorated over all your IRAs; you cannot convert just the non-deductible amount. In order to benefit from the backdoor, you must either convert your other IRAs as well (which may not be a good idea, as you are usually in a high tax bracket if you need to use the backdoor), or else transfer your deductible IRA contributions to an employer plan such as a 401(k) (which may cost you if the 401(k) has poor investment options).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f34553d1f9600c4b8a502d5c4daffca7",
"text": "The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dba80ff472f390f5f0c726aae6bb982c",
"text": "Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23. I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so. I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so. Another consideration: Is your companies program a good one? if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match. Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there. The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year. Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year. Otherwise you may miss out on your company match. It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not. It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future. On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f9132bfd66f5c32c2f8d94f859edcbc",
"text": "\"Here's the detailed section of IRS Pub 590 It looks like you intended to have a \"\"trustee to trustee conversion\"\", but the receiving trustee dropped their ball. The bad news is, a \"\"rollover contribution\"\" needed to be done in 60 days of the distribution. There is good news, you can request an extension from the IRS, with one of the reasons if there was an error by one of the financial institutions involved. Other waivers. If you do not qualify for an automatic waiver, you can apply to the IRS for a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement. To apply for a waiver, you must submit a request for a letter ruling under the appropriate IRS revenue procedure. This revenue procedure is generally published in the first Internal Revenue Bulletin of the year. You must also pay a user fee with the application. The information is in Revenue Procedure 2016-8 in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2016-1 available at www.irs.gov/irb/2016-01_IRB/ar14.html. In determining whether to grant a waiver, the IRS will consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including: Whether errors were made by the financial institution (other than those described under Automatic waiver , earlier); Whether you were unable to complete the rollover due to death, disability, hospitalization, incarceration, restrictions imposed by a foreign country, or postal error; Whether you used the amount distributed (for example, in the case of payment by check, whether you cashed the check); and How much time has passed since the date of distribution. You can also see if you can get ETrade to \"\"recharacterize\"\" the equity position to your desired target IRA. The positive here is that the allowed decision window for calendar year 2016 rollovers is October 15 2017; the negatives are this is irrevocable, and restricts certain distributions from the target for a year (unlikely to impact your situation, but, you know, \"\"trust but verify\"\" anonymous internet advice); and it requires ETrade to recognize the original transaction was a rollover to a Roth IRA, which they currently don't. But if their system lets them put it through you could end up with the amount in a traditional IRA with no other taxable events to report, which appears to be your goal. Recharacterization FAQ\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba92dda80ec4ee9b2a01658aad4269a3",
"text": "\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "703d3f19d981eeae3ea9f433c253c381",
"text": "Your financial advisor got a pretty good commission for selling you the annuity is what happened. As for transferring it over to Vanguard (or any other company) and investing it in something else, go to Vanguard's site, tell them that you want to open a new Roth IRA account by doing a trustee-to-trustee transfer from your other Roth IRA account, and tell them to go get the funds for you from your current Roth IRA trustee. You will need to sign some papers authorizing Vanguard to go fetch, make sure all the account numbers and the name of the current trustee (usually a company with a name that includes Trust or Fiduciary as shown on your latest statement) are correct, and sit back and wait while your life improves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92a4f46e21e187004a8eab1a3efc8831",
"text": "Don’t take the cash deposit whatever you do. This is a retirement savings vehicle after all and you want to keep this money designated as such. You have 3 options: 1) Rollover the old 401k to the new 401k. Once Your new plan is setup you can call who ever runs that plan and ask them how to get started. It will require you filling out a form with the old 401k provider and they’ll transfer the balance of your account directly to the new 401k. 2) Rollover the old 401k to a Traditional IRA. This involves opening a new traditional IRA if you don’t already have one (I assume you don’t). Vanguard is a reddit favorite and I can vouch for them as Well. Other shops like Fidelity and Schwab are also good but since Vanguard is very low cost and has great service it’s usually a good choice especially for beginners. 3) Convert the old 401k to a ROTH IRA. This is essentially the same as Step 2, the difference is you’ll owe taxes on the balance you convert. Why would you voluntarily want to pay taxes f you can avoid them with options 1 or 2? The beauty of the ROTH is you only pay taxes on the money you contribute to the ROTH, then it grows tax free and when you’re retired you get to withdraw it tax free as well. (The money contained in a 401k or a traditional IRA is taxed when you withdraw in retirement). My $.02. 401k accounts typically have higher fees than IRAs, even if they own the same mutual funds the expense ratios are usually more in the 401k. The last 2 times I’ve changed jobs I’ve converted the 401k money into my ROTH IRA. If it’s a small sum of money and/or you can afford to pay the taxes on the money I’d suggest doing the same. You can read up heavily on the pros/cons of ROTH vs Traditional but My personal strategy is to have 2 “buckets” or money when I retire (some in ROTH and some in Traditional). I can withdraw as much money from the Traditional account until I Max out the lowest Tax bracket and then pull any other money I need from the ROTH accounts that are tax free.This allows you to keep taxes fairly low in retirement. If you don’t have a ROTH now this is a great way to start one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52bd90a10e901489c5d83fb26c6672e0",
"text": "Another, completely different way to look at your huge mistake: It's not a huge mistake. You're getting your money out of a restricted account. You're paying taxes now (plus an extra tax of 10%) to regain some of your privacy of where you're putting your money. You're paying up now as a trade-off to paying much later, when the rules can be completely different and the tax rates much higher. You're deciding not to put the money into another restricted account, which has yearly reporting requirements to the IRS above and beyond those required with taxable earnings. It's a cost-benefit analysis whether you roll your money over to an IRA account or not. You hear about the benefits a lot more often than you hear about the costs, which it what I'm introducing you to with my answer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
71edfc74494121936f744b4e06975b20
|
What is “financial literacy” and how does one become “financially literate”?
|
[
{
"docid": "42ca73dfd3632949047be4a350b2a169",
"text": "Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4018451a2cbc05924ca36ad6ee8608bb",
"text": "Financial Literacy is about learning about finance and money and how to use and manage them to give you better outcomes in life. Just like the more books you read and the more writing you do will improve your literacy, the more financial books you read, the more questions you ask and the more you participate in this forum and others like it, the more you will improve your financial literacy. The more financial literate you are the more you will be able to make informed decisions regarding your finances and the more you will be able to avoid financial scams.",
"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": "d3eeec7eadbe4f8b00249d9fc465b2a1",
"text": "I used to think this exact same way. But there are something that transcend general topics and are common throughout every part of life just due to general human nature. You may be surprised in how you can draw parallels from these fiction books to the real world including finance.",
"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": "ddaec831da2ea04d33237c7a9d7a2a9b",
"text": "Are you sure the question even makes sense? In the present-day world economy, it's unlikely that someone young who just started working has the means to put away any significant amount of money as savings, and attempting to do so might actually preclude making the financial choices that actually lead to stability - things like purchasing [the right types and amounts of] insurance, buying outright rather than using credit to compensate for the fact that you committed to keep some portion of your income as savings, spending money in ways that enrich your experience and expand your professional opportunities, etc. There's also the ethical question of how viable/sustainable saving is. The mechanism by which saving ensures financial stability is by everyone hoarding enough resources to deal with some level of worst-case scenario that might happen in their future. This worked for past generations in the US because we had massive amounts (relative to the population) of (stolen) natural resources, infrastructure built on enslaved labor, etc. It doesn't scale with modern changes the world is undergoing and it inherently only works for some people when it's not working for others. From my perspective, much more valuable financial skills for the next generation are:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87d5d8244b8440f1410392f022ca725d",
"text": "I'm a college student with a technical and math background but I'm looking to apply to some jobs in financial tech because I find it to be an interesting industry. What are some good must-read finance books that can help me acquainted with finance for someone who has little to no experience/knowledge?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11a8caec7b9b9cee3197785a617e2402",
"text": "You don't need a finance degree, no, but what you do need is evidence. Mind linking some of your sources? Can you flesh it out in detail for us? If not, why are you crusading for a cause you have no domain knowledge of?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a4816563e0e034461e3eb1c563ded99",
"text": "Economics without math is a tall order, since it seems that one of the things economists love to do is try and reduce everything down to mathematical formulas. OTOH you are asking about a lot of topics besides economics. A few books I might suggest would be those three should do a good job of introductory info and helping you understand the basics and vocabulary. If you want more, one of the better 'recommended reading lists' for things financial that I've ever found is here",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54ce4f503afc151425f30f55a31e5e08",
"text": "You are smart to read books to better inform yourself of the investment process. I recommend reading some of the passive investment classics before focusing on active investment books: If you still feel like you can generate after-tax / after-expenses alpha (returns in excess of the market returns), take a shot at some active investing. If you actively invest, I recommend the Core & Satellite approach: invest most of your money in a well diversified basket of stocks via index funds and actively manage a small portion of your account. Carefully track the expenses and returns of the active portion of your account and see if you are one of the lucky few that can generate excess returns. To truly understand a text like The Intelligent Investor, you need to understand finance and accounting. For example, the price to earnings ratio is the equity value of an enterprise (total shares outstanding times price per share) divided by the earnings of the business. At a high level, earnings are just revenue, less COGS, less operating expenses, less taxes and interest. Earnings depend on a company's revenue recognition, inventory accounting methods (FIFO, LIFO), purchase price allocations from acquisitions, etc. If you don't have a business degree / business background, I don't think books are going to provide you with the requisite knowledge (unless you have the discipline to read textbooks). I learned these concepts by completing the Chartered Financial Analyst program.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f6a4d63ad085b25f9bafb7771fb0b71",
"text": "\"Taking \"\"literature\"\" in a slightly more literal sense, if you like fiction and have a lot of time, Neal Stephenson's trilogy *The Baroque Cycle*, set around 1700, has as one of its main storylines the development of a modern currency and economical system in Europe. In particular, in the second book, *The Confusion*, one of the main characters does a role-playing exercise in finance (page 357) that covers similar ground to otherwiseyep's posts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52cc8c513b5bba4570079217bb036a1c",
"text": "I'm in the same position as you. I've found YouTube to be a great resource, as well as reading things from outlets like the WSJ. Having a close friend in a target school studying finance also helps a ton, as I have someone to talk to casually about things, as well as ask questions. Check out [this](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63B2lDhyKOsImI7FjCf6eDW) playlist on YouTube. I've seen the professor (Lo) mentioned more than once in articles in the WSJ. He's written some books too that I'd like to read. I haven't watched that whole playlist, but the first few videos are helpful. Martin Shkreli's YouTube channel is a great resource. It's mentioned constantly on this sub. His finance lessons as well as his weekly podcast are great. I also like to listen to (via YouTube Red) talks given by execs like Ackman, Gray, Simons, Dalio, etc. [this](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVJalJNQWimC2zWrIHR_bSQ) channel uploads tons of interviews and talks that I find interesting. They can get repetitive, but I find it fun to listen to these guys. You can also get a student membership to the American Finance Association for free. Academic papers are still way above my level, but if you really get into it, those could be fun. You can subscribe to email newsletters for some free content. Almost Daily Grant's is a good one, the normal journal costs like 2k a year. Feel free to message me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c3222f7e7299fa077a176bf2df9e034",
"text": "\"Excellent questions! Asking such questions indicates something special about yourself. The desire to learn and adjust your beliefs will increase your chance of success in your life. I would use a wide variety of authors to increase your education. Myself I prefer Dave Ramsey to Clark Howard, but I think Clark is very good. The first thing you should focus on is learning how to do and live by a budget. Often times, adults will assume that you are on a budget because you are broke. It happens with my friends and my youngest child is older than you. Nothing could be further from the truth. A budget is simply a plan on how you will spend your income so you don't run out of money before you run out of month. Along with budgeting I would also focus on goal setting. This is the type of \"\"investing\"\" you should be doing at your age. For example if your primary goal was to become an engineer, my recommendation is to hold off buying stocks/mutual funds and using your current income to get through school with little or no student loans. Another example might be to open your own HVAC business. Your best bet might be to learn the trade, working for someone else, and take night classes for business management. Most 18 year olds have very little earning power. Your focus at this point should be increasing your income and learning how to manage the income you have. Please keep in mind that most debt is bad. It robs you of your income which is your greatest wealth building tool. Car loans and credit card debt is just plain stupid. Often times a business case can be made for reasonable student loans. However, why not challenge yourself to take none. How much further ahead could you be if you graduate, with a degree, when your peers are strapped with a 40K loan? Keep up the good work and keep asking questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "653c0646e45cbd23ae492248f4669fda",
"text": "Wealth is something that we as a whole need, yet the question is how? Making wealth is not something that is troublesome but rather it is something that you need to think emphatically, as it is said negative considerations can give you negative outcomes. So right off the bat, you should simply begin thinking emphatically and for this, your psyche needs to imagine that way. Wealth is something that can guarantee a superior future. Having a huge amount of wealth is not something you will get in a matter of seconds. This can be a convenient procedure and a great deal of hazard is included in accomplishing it. We, at Wealth Generators, help you in getting your dream of being rich completed in a very professional way. We through proper guidance given by the financial experts, enable you to generate handsome wealth in a very short span of time. Our financial experts will guide you throughout the wealth generation procedures in accordance with the latest market trends and the ups and downs. Our step by step guide will help you in making decisive decisions in a very effective way. We provide financial education through our newsletters either on the weekly, monthly and yearly basis to let the readers understand the insights of the capital market and its derivatives. We use the latest financial technologies and tools to bring the best to the forefront of the readers. Our wealth generator newsletters are the essential guide in this competitive market scenario to help the smart investors or people willing to earn huge profits in real time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ca0852fdce161b965d5715975eb9a33",
"text": "\"As foundational material, read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd64e46c50726738ae17a75b96984b18",
"text": "\"There are many paths to success, but they all begin with education. You made the first big step just by visiting here. We have 17,000 questions, arranged by tag so you can view those on a given topic. You can sort by votes to see the ones that have the best member acceptance. I'll agree with Ben that one of the best ones is \"\"The correct order of investing.\"\" We both offered answers there, and that helps address a big chunk of your issue. The book recommendations are fine, you'll quickly find that each author has his/her own slant or focus on a certain approach. For example, one financial celebrity (note - in the US, there are private advisors, usually with credentials of some sort, there are those who work for brokers and also offers help, there are financial bloggers (I am one), and there are those who are on the radio or TV who may or may not have any credentials) suggests that credit cards are to be avoided. The line in another answer here, \"\"You're not going to get rich earning 1% on a credit card,\"\" is a direct quote of one such celebrity. I disputed that in my post \"\"I got rich on credit card points!\"\" The article is nearly 2 years old, the account accumulating the rewards has recently passed $34,000. This sum of money is more wealth than 81% of people in the world have. The article was a bit tongue in cheek (sarcastic) but it made a point. A young person should get a credit card, a good one, with no fee, and generous rewards. Use the card to buy only what you can pay back that month. At year end, I can download all my spending. The use of the card helps, not hinders, the budgeting process, and provides a bit of safety with its guarantees and theft protection. Your question really has multiple facets. If these answers aren't helpful enough, I suggest you ask a new question, but focus on one narrow issue. \"\"Paying off debt\"\" \"\"Getting organized\"\" \"\"Saving\"\" \"\"Budgeting\"\" all seem to be part of your one question here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8a581c0063de09e5ee99a240460a4e7",
"text": "I rather like The Ascent of Money, by Niall Ferguson. This comes in several formats. There's a video version, a written version (ISBN-13: 978-1594201929), and an audio version. This book covers the history of financial instruments. It covers the rise of money, the history of bonds and stocks, insurance and hedge funds, real-estate, and the spread of finance across the world. It is a great introduction to finance, though its focus is very definitely on the history. It does not cover more advanced topics, and will not leave you with any sort of financial plan, but it's a great way to get a broad overview and historical understanding of money and markets. I strongly recommend both the video and the written or audio version.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f962bc7b9af0fceccd20d5509ca42b0d
|
Are low commission trading sites safe?
|
[
{
"docid": "1940348e30b01c2494e3e8aeb301fb11",
"text": "\"Generally, yes. Rather than ask, \"\"why are these guys so cheap?\"\", you should be asking why the big names are so expensive. :) Marketing spend plays a big role there. Getting babies to shill for your company during the super bowl requires a heck of a lot of commissions. Due to the difficulties involved in setting up a brokerage, it's unlikely that you'll see a scam. A brokerage might go bankrupt for random reasons, but that's what investor insurance is for. \"\"Safeness\"\" is mostly the likelihood that you'll be able to get access to your funds on deposit with the broker. Investment funds are insured by SIPC for up to $500,000, with a lower limit on cash. The specific limits vary by broker, with some offering greater protection paid for on their own dime. Check with the broker -- it's usually on their web pages under \"\"Security\"\". Funds in \"\"cash\"\" might be swept into an interest-earning investment vehicle for which insurance is different, and that depends on the broker, too. A few Forex brokers went bankrupt last year, although that's a new market with fewer regulatory protections for traders. I heard that one bankruptcy in the space resulted in a 7% loss for traders with accounts there, and that there was a Ponzi-ish scam company as well. Luckily, the more stringent regulation of stock brokerages makes that space much safer for investors. If you want to assess the reliability of an online broker, I suggest the following: It's tempting to look at when the brokerage was founded. Fly-by-night scams, by definition, won't be around very long -- and usually that means under a few months. Any company with a significant online interface will have to have been around long enough to develop that client interface, their backend databases, and the interface with the markets and their clearing house. The two brokerages you mentioned have been around for 7+ years, so that lends strength to the supposition of a strong business model. That said, there could well be a new company that offers services or prices that fit your investment need, and in that case definitely look into their registrations and third-party reviews. Finally, note that the smaller, independent brokerages will probably have stiffer margin rules. If you're playing a complex, novel, and/or high-risk strategy that can't handle the volatility of a market crash, even a short excursion such as the 2010 flash crash, stiff margin rules might have consequences that a novice investor would rather pretend didn't exist.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ae6972f811456604fe65183a6d76c6a",
"text": "I have used TradeKing for a couple of years now and love it. It really is a great site. They hold an IRA trading account for me and have been helpful in rolling money into that account, and with answering the occasional question. Previously I have used Scottrade and found that TradeKing is a much better value.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "126ad2799726268db97c7ccb9abd8654",
"text": "\"Pink Sheets is not a stock exchange per se, and securities traded through it are not as \"\"safe\"\" as the ones on a stock exchange regulated by SEC. Many companies are traded there because they failed to comply with the SEC regulations, or are bankrupt or don't want the level of reporting to the public that the SEC regulations require. Since you're talking about an ADR of a company traded on LSE, it might be much safer that other, \"\"regular\"\", securities, but still it means that you're buying an unregulated security (even if it is of a company regulated elsewhere). Notice the volume of trades: mere thousands of dollars per day (in a good day, in some days there are no trades at all). It makes it harder to sell the security when needed. Why not buying at LSE?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "902cc889fd938cc465440b947558a70a",
"text": "I think your best bet would be commission-free ETFs, which have no minimum and many have a share price under $100. Most online brokerages have these now, e.g. Vanguard, Fidelity, etc. Just have to watch out for any non-trading fees brokerages may charge with a low balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a438d1fb8c6ec13210a1dd6eb9cf28c",
"text": "However, is it a risk that they may withhold liquidity in a market panic crash to protect their own capital? Two cases exist here. One is if you access the direct market, then they cannot. Secondly if you are trading in the internal market created by them, yes they can do to save their behind, but that is open to question. They don't make money on your profit or loss, their money comes from you trading. So as long as you maintain the required margin in your accounts, you can go ahead. I had a mail exchange with IG Index regarding this and they categorically refuted on this point. Will their clients be unable to sell at a fair market price in a panic crash? No. Also, do CFD providers sometimes make an occasional downward spike to cream off their clients' cut-loss order? Need proof regarding this, not saying it cannot happen. They wouldn't antagonize the people bringing them business without any reason. They would be putting their money at risk. But you should know, their traders are also in the market. Which might look skimming your money, it would be their traders making money in the free market. After all Google, Facebook etc also sell your personal data for profit, why shouldn't the CFD firm also. Since they are market makers, what is to prevent them from attempting these tricks? Are these concerns also valid for forex brokers serving the retail public? What you consider as tricks are legitimate use of information to make money.",
"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": "62fb28744efe73943158d91328cfc45c",
"text": "Well they do have incentive, the more volume you trade the more they make in commission. The shop is mostly daytrading oriented but you can do whatever you want. From what I gather, alot of their revenue comes in the form of training programs (although they offer one for free when you sign up, mostly in equities) which are completely optional. Also, they're willing to sponsor me for my 7, which is good. I mean this is a super risky career move but you roll the dice when you enter prop trading, in more ways than one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd4e634b0f9b679dc87584cab48a1ecd",
"text": "\"For \"\"smaller trades\"\", I'm not sure you can beat FXCM.com, a large, dedicated FX trading shop with extremely tight spreads, and a \"\"Micro\"\" account that you can open for as little as $25(US). Their \"\"main\"\" offering has a minimum account size of $2k (US), but recommends an account size of $10k or more. But they also have a \"\"micro\"\" account, which can be opened for as little as $25, with a $500 or higher recommended size. I haven't used them personally, but they're well known in the discount FX space. One strong positive indicator, in my opinion, is that they sell an online FX training course for $19.99. Why is that positive? It means that their margins on your activity are small, and they're not trying to get you \"\"hooked\"\". If that were not the case, they'd give the course away, since they'd be able to afford to, and they would expect to make so much of your subsequent activity. They do have some free online materials, too, but not the video stuff. Another plus is that they encourage you to use less leverage than they allow. This does potentially serve their interests, by getting more of your deposits with them, but a lot of FX shops advertise the leverage to appeal to users' hope to make more faster, which isn't a great sign, in my opinion. Note that the micro account has no human support; you can only get support via email. On the other hand, the cost to test them out is close to nil; you can literally open an account for $25.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15ed01457363a10e8e6ccbec9e07ffe2",
"text": "While theoretically it works it's not a realistic trade because of market efficiency. It's realistic for brokers to advertise trades like this so they can earn more customers and commission. These sorts of trades will be priced in to highly liquid big ticket names like KO and the vast majority of the market. The possibility exists with small names with less liquidity, less trading volume; however, the very execution of this trade will alter the behavior of impending traders thus minimizing any potential profits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b20c6a5a5c7ade576e954c164b0a7253",
"text": "How easy is it to take out your money? To they offer any trading? Do you have to put more money up on your own to trade with? This seems pretty sketchy. I am currently working at a prop trading firm and although some sketchy firms require you to make a deposit, most legit ones do not. Not to mention their commissions are incredibly high (I interviewed at another sketchy firm but only charges a couple cents for commission). >most of the time you get rebates on them If it is not explicitly stated in the contract of how they decide your rebates than don't expect much. Most of the trading industry is build around taking advantage of people where people's word soon becomes meaningless unless it is in writing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9a364385b7cd1efc9c1bbe8b0eb5ff3",
"text": "I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f05e7457666194747ad2a2fffb8275aa",
"text": "Now the question: is advisable for a beginner to speculate in CfDs? No. If not, is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money? In the US, and I'm sure this carries to the UK, most (if not all) big brokerages (Schwab, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc) have a set of funds that are zero load and zero commission though the fund will still have an expense ratio. This is the Barclay's UK page related to zero cost investing in the Barclay's funds. Barclay's might not be the right fit for a beginner as it seems there is a hefty account minimum, but the same zero commission concept exists in the UK. Again, most of these brokerages will also have an extremely low expense ratio S&P index (or some other market index) fund. As a beginner that's where you should start. This is not meant to patronize beginners, it's just math. Assume your trade commission is £7. If your investment is £100, you'll lose £7 right up front to the buy commission, then another £7 when you sell. Lets say your position raises 10%, you'll be at a net loss of 4.7%. Meanwhile if you put your £100 in to a 0.1% expense fee mutual fund with no transaction commissions and no load fees, after a 10% gain you'd owe £0.11 due to the expense ratio at the of the year. You'd have £109.89. Beginners get crushed by fees and commission. It is not advisable, by any stretch of the imagination, to attempt to day trade or actively manage a portfolio of any sort of security; and commodities and currency are the WORST place to start.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2526e80ce78a14ed9d7e9c0c94592bd",
"text": "\"I think this gets at why some of us are becoming concerned about the volume (or more importantly the portion) of HFT in capital markets these days. You have algos trading based on \"\"technical trends\"\" which are increasingly just the behavior of other algos. Rinse and repeat. At a certain point it just becomes a feedback loop. Now, I agree that there's no reason to be scared of HFT simply because its new or fast, which is what I think threatens a lot of people. But the problem is that the economic and social utility of markets arises from their being information aggregation engines. If it gets to the point where most of the price action is driven by algos which are trading solely based on a few minutes of technical data, no new information is being contributed to the price discovery process. Now, it may be that a certain amount of \"\"meta-information\"\" can be discovered from pattern analysis of short term technical history. But it seems to me this information is more limited in both quality and quantity compared to the information inputs of thoughtful humans acting on a reasoned analysis of economic and other world events.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95e392331ea40b47c5aa6e86a019aa5b",
"text": "Oanda.com trades spot forex and something they call box options, it's not quite what you are looking for, but maybe worth looking up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd737c6b883bb1c242a47956f42d0b68",
"text": "There is normally a policy at the organisation that would restrict trades or allow trades under certain conditions. This would be in accordance with the current regulations as well as Institutions own ethical standards. Typical I have seen is that Technology roles are to extent not considered sensitive, ie the employees in this job function normally do not access sensitive data [unless your role is analyst or production support]. An employee in exempt roles are allowed to trade in securities directly with other broker or invest in broad based Mutual Funds or engage a portfolio management services from a reputed organisation. It is irrelevant that your company only deals with amounts > 1 Million, infact if you were to know what stock the one million is going into, you may buy it slightly earlier and when the company places the large order, the stock typically moves upwards slightly, enough for you to make some good money. That is Not allowed. But its best you get hold of a document that would layout the do' and don't in your organisation. All such organisation are mandated to have a written policy in this regard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cf001967728581cbc9cf897c10f6944",
"text": "\"I've never used them myself, but Scottrade might be something for you to look at. They do $7 internet trades, but also offer $27 broker assisted trades (that's for stocks, in both cases). Plus, they have brick-and-morter storefronts all over the US for that extra \"\"I gotta have a human touch\"\". :-) Also, they do have after hours trading, for the same commission as regular trading.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f98342a46aadd4f3c7192e8b9415206c",
"text": "For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
12e760f4402137fb2ad15aae78054abd
|
As a US Permanent Resident, how much money I can send from the US to India in my NRE account per year?
|
[
{
"docid": "a9a3dfa1f556faed2d300371982d3cf4",
"text": "I assume that you are a citizen of India, and are what Indian law calls a NRI (NonResident Indian) and thus entitled to operate an NRE (NonResident External) account in India. You can deposit US dollars into the NRE account, but the money is converted to Indian Rupees (INR) and held as INR. You can withdraw the money and bring it back to the US as US dollars, but the INR will be converted to US$ at the exchange rate applicable on the date of the transaction. With the recent decline of the Indian Rupee against the US dollar, many NRE accounts lost a lot of their value. You can deposit any amount of money in your NRE account. Some banks may limit the amount you can send in one business day, but if 250 times that amount seriously limits the amount of money you want to send each year, you should not be asking here; there are enough expensive lawyers, bankers and tax advisors who will gladly guide you to a satisfactory solution. There is no limitation on the total amount that you can have in your NRE account. The earnings (interest paid) on the sum in your NRE account is not taxable income to you in India but you may still need to file an income tax return in India to get a refund of the tax withheld by the bank (TDS) and sent to the tax authorities. The bank should not withhold tax on the earnings in an NRE account but it did happen to me (in the past). While the interest paid on your NRE account is not taxable in India, it is taxable income to you on your US tax returns (both Federal and State) and you must declare it on your tax return(s) even though the bank will not issue a 1099-INT form to you. Be aware also about the reporting requirements for foreign accounts (FBAR, TD F90-22.1 etc). Lots of people ignored this requirement in the past, but are more diligent these days after the IRS got a truckload of information about accounts in foreign banks and went after people charging them big penalties for not filing these forms for ever so many years. There was a huge ruckus in the Indian communities in the US about how the IRS was unfairly targeting simple folks instead of auditing the rich! But, if the total value of the accounts did not exceed $10K at any time of the year, these forms do not need to be filed. It seems, though, that you will not fall under this exemption since you are planning on having considerably larger sums in your NRE account. So be sure and follow the rules.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0c69177e47bd21ad594a45558a393d9f",
"text": "Assuming that the NRE (NonResident External) account is in good standing, that is, you are still eligible to have an NRE account because your status as a NonResident of India has not changed in the interim, you can transfer money back from your NRE account to your US accounts without any problems. But be aware that you bear the risk of getting back a much smaller amount than you invested in the NRE account because of devaluation of the Indian Rupee (INR). NRE accounts are held in INR, and whatever amounts (in INR) that you choose to withdraw will be converted to US$ at the exchange rate then applicable. Depending on whether it is the Indian bank that is doing the conversion and sending money by wire to your US bank, or you are depositing a cheque in INR in your US bank, you may be charged miscellaneous service fees also. To answer a question that you have not asked as yet, there is no US tax on the transfer of the money. The interest paid on your deposits into the NRE account are not taxable income to you in India, but are taxable income to you in the US, and so I hope that you have been declaring this income each year on Schedule B of your income tax return, and also reporting that you have accounts held abroad, as required by US law. See for example, this question and its answer and also this question and its answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a37ba433298a25962301a4c5df8a2d03",
"text": "You haven't indicated where the funds are held. They should ideally be held in NRO account. If you haven't, have this done ASAP. Once the funds are in NRO account, you can repatriate this outside of India subject to a limit of 1 million USD. A CA certificate is required. Please contact your Indian Bank and they should be able to guide you. There are no tax implications of this in US as much as I know, someone else may post the US tax aspect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96fb4aa75f6d71320b62f947c29f32f3",
"text": "What taxes will I have to pay to India? Income earned outside of India when your status is Non-Resident Indian, there is no tax applicable. You can repatriate the funds back to India within 7 years without any tax event. Someone else may put an answer about US taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c774915fc2990b4046a3769e743b9d2",
"text": "my tax liabilities in India on my stock profit in US You would need to pay tax on the profit in India as well after you have become resident Indian. India and US have a double tax avoidance treaty. Hence if you have already paid tax in US, you can claim benefit and pay balance if any. For example if you US tax liability is 20 USD and Indian liability is USD 30, you just need to pay 10 USD. If the Indian tax liability is USD 20 or less you don't need to pay anything. what if in future I transfer all my US money to India? The funds you have earned in US while you were Non-Resident is tax free in India. You can bring it back any-time within a period of 7 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c64bdcc8417e0d806b606ffe2228e94b",
"text": "A. Kindly avoid taking dollars in form of cash to india unless and until it is an emergency. Once the dollar value is in excess of $10,000, you need to declare the same with Indian customs at the destination. Even though it is not a cumbersome procedure, why unnecessarily undergo all sort of documentation and most importantly at all security checks, you will be asked questions on dollars and you need to keep answering. Finally safety issue is always there during the journey. B.There is no Tax on the amount you declare. You can bring in any amount. All you need is to declare the same. C. It is always better to do a wire transfer. D. Any transfer in excess of $14,000 from US, will atract gift tax as per IRS guidelines. You need to declare the same while filing your Income Tax in US and pay the gift tax accordingly. E. Once your fiance receives the money , any amount in excess of Rs 50,000 would be treated as individual income and he has to show the same under Income from other sources while filing the taxes. Taxes will be as per the slab he falls under. F.Only for blood relatives , this limit of 50,000 does not apply. G. Reg the Loan option, suggest do not opt for the same. Incase you want to go ahead, then pl ensure that you fully comply with IRS rules on Loans made to a foreign person from a US citizen or resident. The person lending the money must report the interest payment as income on his or her yearly tax return provided the loan has interest element. No deduction is allowed if the proceeds are used for personal or non-business purposes.In the case of no-interest loans, most people believe there is no taxable income because no interest is paid. The IRS views this seriously and the tax rules are astonishingly complex when it comes to no-interest loans. Even though no interest is paid to the lender, the IRS will treat the transaction as if the borrower paid interest at the applicable federal rate to the lender and the lender subsequently gifted the interest back to the borrower.The lender is taxed on the imaginary interest income and, depending on the amount, may also be liable for gift tax on the imaginary payment made back to the borrower. Hope the above claryfies your query. Since this involves taxation suggest you take an opinion from a Tax attorney and also ask your fiance to consult a Charted Accountant on the same. Regards",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67ecc3e3dcdb4210d7f539a4f5a2b4a0",
"text": "As an NRI, you can't hold a regular savings account. It should have been converted to NRO. Option 1: Open NRE account : Since I am relocating permanently this might not be good option for me as converting This is the best Option as funds into NRE are not taxable in India. The provides a clean paper trail so that if there are any tax queries, you can answer them easily. You can open a Rupee NRE account, move the funds. On return move the funds into Normal Savings account and close the NRE account. This is not much of hassle. Option 2: Create NRO account: There would be taxes on the interest earned of the funds. But I am not sure of this, since I will have been moved to India permanently would I need to still pay taxes on the interest earned while I am in India? Any interest in NRO or normal savings account is taxable in India. There is no exemption. Option 3: I can transfer my funds directly to my account in India but I believe I would have to pay tax on the the funds that I transfer and that would be double taxation. Which I think would be the worst option for me. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is incorrect. Any earnings outside of India when your status is NRI, is not taxable in India. Opening an NRE account provides proper paper trail of funds. As an NRI one cannot hold normal savings account. This should have been converted into an NRO account. Although there is no penalty prescribed, its violation of FEMA regulation. I also hope you were declaring any income in India, i.e. interest etc on savings and filing returns accordingly. Option 4: I can transfer the funds to my direct relatives account. I still believe there would be tax to be paid on the interest earned of the amount. You can transfer it to your parents / siblings / etc. This would come under gift tax purview and would not be taxable. They can then gift this back to you. However such transactions would appear to be evading regulations and may come under scrutiny. Interest on Savings account is taxable. So best is go with Option 1. No hassle. Else go with Option 3, but ensure that you have all the paperwork kept handy for next 7 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9811f2f705f0e72198286d48a3602352",
"text": "To my knowledge, there shouldn't be a limit on the amount you can receive as a gift, and gifts are not considered income to you; they are not taxable for the recipient. Depending on the size of the wire transfer, it may be reported by the bank to the government, but there is no limit, and it should not be a concern to you. (I don't think that $2500 is large enough to be reportable anyway.) Having said that, this might be a good question to ask your international student advisor at your school to make sure he or she agrees. There is a very similar question on Avvo.com (a legal question-and-answer site) that agrees: Limit to transfer money to students on f1 visa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63446bd49d23b1872991316c108d9e6e",
"text": "As NRI/PIO (Non-Resident Indian/Person of Indian Origin), the overseas income and transfers in foreign currency are exempt from Indian income taxes. However, the account in India has to be designated NRE or FCNR. There are three kind of accounts that an NRI can maintain Interest earned in NRE and FCNR accounts is exempt from income taxes. Interest earned in NRO accounts is not exempt from income taxes, in fact banks would withhold about 30% of interest (TDS). The exact tax liability would depend upon income generated in India and TDS could be applied towards that liability when the tax returns are filed. There are other implications also of designating the account as NRE or NRO. NRE accounts can only be funded via inward remittance of permitted foreign currency e.g. deposit USD/GBP. So proceeds like rental income, pension etc. that are generated in INR within India can't be deposited in this account. The money deposited in NRE account can grow tax free and can be converted back in any foreign currency freely. On the other hand NRO accounts can be funded through both inward remittance of permitted foreign currency or local income e.g. rental, pension etc. All the amount in this account is treated as Indian originated INR (even if remitted in foreign currency) and thus is taxed as any other bank account. The amount in this account is subject to the annual cap of convertibility of USD 1 million. Both NRE and NRO accounts are maintained in INR and can be Saving and Term Deposit. Any remittance made to these accounts in any foreign currency is converted to INR at the time of deposit and is maintained in INR. FCNR account are held in foreign currency and can only be Term Deposit. Official definitions: Accounts for Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "970bf827c2ba21f4e4be22f0c766713e",
"text": "As the college education is very costly, I want to send USD 25,000 to him as a gift. What is the procedure and what Indian and American tax laws are involved ? This transaction will be treated as gift. As per Indian law you can transfer unlimited amount to your close relative [son-in-law/grandchildren/daughter/etc]. In US the gift tax is on donor, as you are no US citizen you are not bound by this. As your son-in-law/grandchildren are US citizens, there is no tax to them. Your son-in-law may still need to declare this in Form 3250 or such relevant returns. Under the Liberalized remittance scheme [Refer Q3], you can transfer upto USD 250,000 per year. There maybe some forms that you need to fill. Ask your Bank. If the amount is more than USD 25,000 a CA certificate along with 15CA, 15CB need to be filled. Essentially the CA certifies that taxes on the funds being transferred have already been paid to Govt of India. Can I send money to him directly or to his father who is submitting tax returns in USA? This does not make any difference in India. Someone else may answer this question if it makes a difference in US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "525af4c7a0373197b4a72adee488f3df",
"text": "The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e7432bbf2b00cabb07ad86234b42c8f",
"text": "If you had purchased the land directly from your NRI account in your name [with power of attorney] in your wife's name, it would have been very simple to get the funds back. Whenever you sell the land, transfer the funds into NRO account. From NRO account you can repatriate back USD 1 Million. A CA certificate is required detailing the purpose and that tax is paid on the funds, talk to your bank and it should be easy. The gains will be taxable in India as well as in the US. You can claim rebate to the extent of taxes paid in India.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1399f2e6614b36a0dda352caa0ebf2f2",
"text": "I have not opened any NRE/NRO account before coming to Finland. This is in violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act. Please get this regularized ASAP. All your savings account need to be converted to NRO. Shall I transfer funds from abroad to both NRE and NRO account or I can transfer only to NRE account in India? You can transfer to NRE or NRO. It is advisable to transfer into NRE as funds from here can be repatriated out of India without any paperwork. Funds from NRO account need paperwork to move out of India. I am a regular tax payer in abroad. The Funds which i'll transfer in future will attract any additional tax in India? As your status is Non Resident and the income is during that period, there is no tax applicable in India on this. Few Mutual Fund SIPs (monthly basis) are linked with my existing saving account in india. Do these SIPs will stop when the savings account will turn into NRO account? Shall I need to submit any documents for KYC compliance? If yes, to whom I should submit these? is there any possibility to submit it Online? Check your Bank / Mutual Fund company. Couple of FDs are also opened online and linked with this existing saving account. Do the maturity amount(s) subject to TDS or any tax implication such as 30.9% as this account will be turned into NRO account till that time and NRO account attracts this higher tax percentage. These are subject to taxes in India. This will be as per standard tax brackets. Which account (NRE/NRO) is better for paying EMIs for Home Loan, SIPs of Mutual Funds, utility bills in India, transfer money to relative's account etc Home Loan would be better from NRE account as if you sell the house, the EMI paid can be credited into NRE account and you can transfer this out of India without much paperwork. Same for SIP's. For other it doesn't really matter as it is an expense. Is there any charge to transfer fund from NRE to NRO account if both account maintain in same Bank same branch. Generally No. Check with your bank. Which Bank account's (NRE/NRO) debit/ATM card should be used in Abroad in case of emergency. Check with your bank. NRE funds are more easy. NRO there will be limits and reporting. Do my other savings accounts, maintained in different Banks, also need to be converted into NRO account? If yes, how can it be done from Abroad? Yes. ASAP. Quite a few leading banks allow you to do this if you are not present. Check you bank for guidance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94fbe93988a093aad31077a48a91e604",
"text": "Your NRI friend can use normal Banks or specialized remittance services. There are questions on this website that give pro's and con's. From Indian tax point of you, you have received a gift from friend and as such it falls under Gift Tax act. Any amount upto Rs 50,000 is tax free. Anything above it is taxable as per tax bracket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd0c4d866faf69c94a07dac1b192fd45",
"text": "Anyone able to recommend a good resource on computing discounted cash flows? I'm looking for something that will walk me through calculating DCFs working from the balance sheet, income statement, etc. Textbook or online resources both work!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5ec4a8a6f7f5535762c02bba318838e6
|
Is house swapping possible?
|
[
{
"docid": "074c8aaf0bf362575925d5dffb0edf9c",
"text": "You would have to find someone in the other state who wanted to swap. This is conceivable but difficult if you want the houses to be the same value. How do you find the one person who lives in the right place now and wants to move to the right area? The normal way this situation is handled is to simply put your house on the market. At the same time, you find a new house in the new location. You arrange for a new mortgage for the new house and make purchase contingent on selling the old house. Your buyer pays off your mortgage and gives you a bit left over that you use as a downpayment on the new house. Note that you take a loss on closing costs when you do this. This is why if you are in the position where you move frequently, you may be better off renting. Sometimes an employer will help with this, paying for a long term hotel or short term rental. This can give you more room to sell and buy the houses. If you have to move right now, immediately, not in a few months when your housing situation is fixed, consider double renting. You rent out your mortgaged house to someone and pay rent on a new place. You may put some of your stuff in storage until you get into your permanent place. The downside is that it can be harder to sell a house with a tenant until you are close to the end of the lease. And of course, you are probably not in the best position to get or pay good rent. Your situation restricts your options. You might get stuck in this situation for a year so as to get the time that you need to line up a buyer. Of course, you may get lucky and find someone who wants your old house as an investment property. Such a person won't be bothered by a tenant. But they usually want a good price. After all, they want to make money off it. There are those operations that advertise that they buy ugly houses. They want a good deal. You'll probably take a bath. But they can buy quickly, so you can move on quickly. No waiting until they find a buyer. And I'm not saying that you can't do a swap like you want. I'm just saying that you may find it difficult to find a swapping partner. Perhaps an investment person would be up for it. They take your house in trade for their house, letting you stay in their house until they can fix up your old house and either rent it or sell it. The problem is that it may be hard to find such an investor who can handle a house where you are and has a house where you need to be. I don't have a good suggestion for finding a swapping partner other than calling a lot of realtors and asking for suggestions. Maybe a bit of online checking for properties where the owner's business is managing the sale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b40d3c25c4e2d223fb43e81d965ba7fd",
"text": "Another possibility that you might consider is to find a renter for your current place and move to your destination. If you have a lease for your renter, your mortgage company can consider that as income for approving the purchase of a new house. I did something similar when I purchased my current home, but I was also able to get approved without selling or renting the old place. There's no reason that someone couldn't create a house swapping site for longer-term than a week. It may not initially have as much demand as a 1 week swap, but there are no such existing services that I am aware of.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "72c6294a241bea25d2691f469ed674e1",
"text": "What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea582ead73b55789e8dd68ef14643254",
"text": "I don't believe you can do that. From the IRS: Finally, certain types of property are specifically excluded from Section 1031 treatment. Section 1031 does not apply to exchanges of: I highlighted the relevant items for emphasis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dac3bea905e716cc1763cc0cedb785b",
"text": "I could be wrong, but I doubt you're going to be able to roll the current mortgage into a new one. The problem is that the bank is going to require that the new loan is fully collateralized by the new house. So the only way that you can ensure that is if you can construct the house cheaply enough that the difference between the construction cost and the end market value is enough to cover the current loan AND keep the loan-to-value (LTV) low enough that the bank is secured. So say you currently owe $40k on your mortgage, and you want to build a house that will be worth $200k. In order to avoid PMI, you're going to have to have an LTV of 80% or less, which means that you can spend no more than $160k to build the house. If you want to roll the existing loan in, now you have to build for less than $120k, and there's no way that you can build a $200k house for $120k unless you live in an area with very high land value and hire the builders directly (and even then it may not be possible). Otherwise you're going to have to make up the difference in cash. When you tear down a house, you are essentially throwing away the value of the house - when you have a mortgage on the house, you throw away that value plus you still owe the money, which is a difficult hole to climb out of. A better solution might be to try and sell the house as-is, perhaps to someone else who can tear down the house and rebuild with cash. If that is not a viable option (or you don't want to move) then you might consider a home equity loan to renovate parts of the house, provided that they increase the market value enough to justify the cost (e.g. modernize the kitchen, add on a room, remodel bathrooms, etc. So it all depends on what the house is worth today as-is, how much it will cost you to rebuild, and what the value of the new house will be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9ad0656b5ebff9bb89342abd2b89beb",
"text": "Wrong way round. Transitional arrangements are non-binding guidelines that the lenders can observe if they choose to. The borrower - like your friend - doesn't get to choose whether to use them or not. Your friend obviously can't afford the property, so if you do this, all I can say is congratulations on buying your new house, and I hope you got a deal on the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62434a140f0cfd64e57c57b6ba1b6a0a",
"text": "\"I have a friend who had went on a seminar with FortuneBuilders (the company that has Than Merrill as CEO). He told me that one of the things taught in that seminar was how to find funding for the property that you want to flip. One of the things he mentioned was that there are so-called \"\"hard money\"\" lenders who are willing to lend you the money for the property in exchange for getting their name on the property title. Last time I checked it looked like here in Florida we had at least Bridgewell Capital and Fairview Commercial Lending that were in that business. These hard money lenders get their investment back when the house is sold. So there is some underlying expectation that the house can be sold with some profit (to reimburse both the lender and you for your work). That friend of mine did tell me that he had flipped a house once but that he did not receive the funding to that from a lender but from an in-law, however it was through a similar arrangement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3acb1cbcc9c7dace0639501451082d1",
"text": "Technically, no. Only if used for improvement or expansion to the original property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "115d9f93108304b8f81873e0aa4bca23",
"text": "I converted my downstairs of my house to a suite with an eye to AirBNBing. But I also make money renting it out (I live in a resort town with ridiculously high rents). So far, I haven't tried AirBNB because renting it out on yearly contracts seems like less total effort and I make 1100 gross per month (net is probably closer to ~800) I have no idea if I could make more on AirBNB. Maybe one of these years I'll try it for a few months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce454d430bb2b09d8cd5bf04a2243067",
"text": "This is of course a perfectly normal thing to happen. People trade up to a bigger house every day. When you've found a bigger house you want to move to and a buyer for your existing one, you arrange 'closing dates' for both i.e. the date on which the sale actually happens. Usually you make them very close, either on the same day or with an overlap of a few weeks. You use the equity (i.e. the difference between the house value and the mortgage) in the old house as the down payment on the new house. You can't of course use the part of the old house that is mortgaged. If the day you buy the new and sell the old is the same, your banks and lawyers do everything for you on that day. If there is an overlap then you need something called 'bridge financing' to cover the period when you own two houses. Banks are used to doing this, and it's not really that expensive when you take into account all the other costs of moving house. Talk to them for details. As a side note, it is generally reckoned not to be worth buying a house if you only intended to live there one or two years. The costs involved in the process of buying, selling and moving usually outweigh any gains in house value. You may find yourself with a higher down payment if you rent for a year or two and save up a down payment for your 'bigger' house instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2a85df48c7080ccf28624e2a28e3cb6",
"text": "Maybe a larger house/apartment",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d422c12af9dd3cdf0b821af637c0fe7",
"text": "Your only option might be finding a seller-financed property with a motivated seller who is willing to take the risk of loaning you money. However, be prepared to pay a hefty rate on that loan if you can even pull it off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "febd8fd807124b45ff926beb8203609a",
"text": "You're talking about porting your mortgage, which may be possible if your mortgage was portable to start with, or if your bank subsequently allows it. Note that although porting a mortgage involves keeping most of the original terms and conditions, the process is still much like applying for a new mortgage, including any lending requirements. Here's an article on the subject. EDIT: In response to OP's comment below: What will happen to the first property if I don't sell it? Because porting a mortgage is treated as if you were closing one mortgage and opening a new one, this means that you would need to pay off the first mortgage. Typically this would be done by selling the first property at the same time that you buy the second one. However, if you're not doing this, you'll need to raise funds another way, which could include opening a new mortgage on the first property (of course, if you're doing that, then there would have to be a good reason for porting the original mortgage; otherwise you might as well leave it where it is, and open a new mortgage on the second property instead). Does the article apply the to USA too? That article (and indeed this answer) are based on the situation in the UK. However, they appear to exist in the US too, though are rarer than in the UK.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8018eefd837fd80fcc3c6bd9a4cb2eb5",
"text": "\"JoeTaxpayer's answer mentions using a third \"\"house\"\" account. In my comment on his answer, I mentioned that you could simply use a bookkeeping account to track this instead of the overhead of an extra real bank account. Here's the detail of what I think will work for you. If you use a tool like gnucash (probably also possible in quicken, or if you use paper tracking, etc), create an account called \"\"Shared Expenses\"\". Create two sub accounts under that called \"\"his\"\" and \"\"hers\"\". (I'm assuming you'll have your other accounts tracked in the software as well.) I haven't fully tested this approach, so you may have to tweak it a little bit to get exactly what you want. When she pays the rent, record two transactions: When you pay the electric bill, record two transactions: Then you can see at a glance whether the balances on \"\"his\"\" and \"\"hers\"\" match.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "419c2cebfdf3fcf5bc0590e713494556",
"text": "I have a CPA. They said that it isn't possible. However, I've seen on message boards that it indeed IS possible, multiple times. I'll likely reach out to another CPA. However, I am interested to hear from somebody who has done this before, so that I at least have a name or defined process for what I'm attempting to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3365e1c66ba9713fb7072cd51522b0cd",
"text": "It would depend on how those banks behaved in the market. Seven can own all.the houses and there would be no problem, it only becomes illegal if those banks then collude to fix prices (or some other monopolostic practice). It's important to remember that monopolies are not illegal per se.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685c019870334a5ff27af03d3dc4d69e",
"text": "Very rarely would an investor be happy with a 4% yield independent of anything else that might happen in the future. For example, if in 3 years for some reason or other inflation explodes and 30 year bond yields go up to 15% across the board, they would be kicking themselves for having locked it up for 30 years at 4%. However, if instead of doing that the investor put their money in a 3 year bond at 3% say, they would have the opportunity to reinvest in the new rate environment, which might offer higher or lower yields. This eventually leads fixed income investors to have a bond portfolio in which they manage the average maturity of their bond portfolio to be somewhere between the two extremes of investing it all in super short term/ low yield money market rates vs. super long term bonds. As they constantly monitor and manage their maturing investments, it inevitably leads them to managing interest rate risk as they decide where to reinvest their incremental coupons by looking at the shape of the yield curve at the time and determining what kind of risk/reward tradeoffs they would have to make.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6f91c338651a35883851935d590c812c
|
Is it normal to think of money in different “contexts”?
|
[
{
"docid": "509650124ce0f5080a3df40a6a5727ec",
"text": "The psychology around money is the subject of a lifetime of study. Your observations are not uncommon. The market daily fluctuation is out of our control. Hopefully, by the time the 1% volatility impacts you by say $1,000, you'll have grown accustomed to it, so when the 1% is then $10,000, you won't lose sleep. The difference between the $1000 up/down and the $3 sandwich is simple - one is in your control, the other isn't. When you're out, you need to try to cut down on the math, it will only bring you unhappiness. You're paying for the socializing and can't let the individual items on the check bother you. I'm at the point in my life when I prefer a more expensive restaurant meal that I can't make at home to a moderate one that I'd make myself. For me, that logic works, and it's not keeping us home. Funny how my own sense of value for the dollar pushes me to a more expensive experience, but one that I'll enjoy. By the way - eBay has done an amazing thing, it's created a market for you to sell your stuff, but it's also pulled everyone's collection of junk out for sale. Books I thought might be worth selling go for $1-$2 plus shipping. It's not worth my time or effort, and I need to just break the emotional ties to 'stuff.' I box them up and bring them to the library for their sale. If that picture frame isn't antique, throw it out or have a yard sale. This may be right on track to your question or a complete tangent....",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e1bddb9d11a964933efaaf796f3fdd1",
"text": "\"Well, this relates to how you interpret something's value. We can use that magazine and restaurant as an example. For you the extra $10-$30 more on a decent meal or wine is worth it while $5 for a magazine entertainment on a train ride might not be. This is how all markets work, people make decisions about how they value something and hence choose to spend or not. If you're asking \"\"should I value certain things the way I do?\"\" well that's a different story e.g. should I keep that picture frame for years in the attic to sell it for $3 on eBay later. (probably not worth it) But again you are making that decision based on how YOU choose to value it. So to answer your question: How can I possibly care about this when my stock portfolio is losing (or gaining) $1000 a day? and is it normal? Yes it is normal and we all care. Everyone makes these decisions throughout each day, people will vary as to what they value something to be, but all in all everyone does just what you explained. Here is something that you may find interesting it is about how we value money: What color is your money? if the pdf doesn't work for you then try this link: What color is your money alt link\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46ef1c349a7e585f5f3bd1e59c73d059",
"text": "Here's how I think about money. There are only 3 categories / contexts (buckets) that my earned money falls into. Savings is my emergency fund. I keep 6 months of total expenses (expenses are anything in the consumption bucket). You can be as detailed as you want with this area but I tend to leave a fudge factor. In other words, if I estimate that I spend approximately $3,000 a month in consumption dollars then I'll save $3,500 times 6 in the bank. This money needs to be liquid. Some people use a HELOC, other people use their ROTH contributions. In any case, you need to put this money some place you can get access to it in case you go from accumulation (income exceed expenses) to decumulation mode (expenses exceed income). This money is distinct from consumption which I will cover in paragraph three. Investments are stocks, bonds, income producing real estate, small businesses, etc. These dollars require a strategy. The strategy can include some form of asset allocation but more importantly a timeline. These are the dollars that are working for you. Each dollar placed here will multiply over time. Once you put a dollar here it shouldn't be taken out unless there is some sort of catastrophe that your savings can't handle or your timeline has been achieved. Notice that rental real estate is included so liquidating stocks to purchase rental real estate is NOT considered removing investment dollars. Just reallocating based on your asset allocation. This bucket includes 401k's, IRAs, all tax-sheltered accounts, non-sheltered brokerage accounts, and rental real estate. In general your primary residence is not included in this bucket. Some people include the equity of their primary residence in the investment column but it can complicate the equation and I prefer to leave it out. The consumption bucket is the most important bucket and the one you spend the most time with. It requires a budget. This includes your $5 magazine and your $200 bottle of wine. Anything in this bucket is gone. You can recover a portion of it by selling it on ebay for $3 (these are earned dollars) but the original $5 is still considered spent. The reason your thought process in this area is distinct from the other two, the decisions made in this area will have the biggest impact on your personal finances. Warren Buffett was famous for skimping on haircuts because they are worth thousands of dollars down the road if they are invested instead. Remember this is a zero-sum game so every $1 not consumed is placed in one of the other buckets. Once your savings bucket is full every dollar not consumed is sent to investments. Remember to include everything that does not fit in the other two buckets. Most people forget their car insurance, life insurance, tax bill at the end of the year, accountant bill, etc. In conclusion, there are three buckets. Savings, which serve as your emergency bucket. This money should not be touched unless you switch from accumulation to decumulation. Investments, which are your dollars that are working for you over time. They require a strategy and a timeline. Consumption, which are your monthly expenses. These dollars keep you alive and contribute to your enjoyment. This is a short explanation of my use of money. It can get as complicated and detailed as you want it to be but as long as you tag your dollars correctly you'll be okay IMHO. HTH.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "411b2d4d2e5d9415dbd97a8e83cba938",
"text": "\"Two reasons: Many people make lots of financial decisions (and other kinds of decisions) without actually running any numbers to see what is best (or even possible). They just go with their gut and buy things they feel like buying, without making a thoroughgoing attempt to assess the impact on their finances. I share your bafflement at this, but it is true. A sobering example that has stuck with me can be found in this Los Angeles Times story from a few years ago, which describes a family spending $1000 more than their income every month, while defaulting on their mortgage and dipping into their 7-year-old daughter's savings account to cover the bills --- but still spending $275 a month on \"\"beauty products and services\"\" and $200 a month on pet expenses. Even to the extent that people do take finances into account, finances are not the only thing they take into account. For many people, driving a car that is new, looks nice and fresh, has the latest features, etc., is something they are willing to pay money for. Your question \"\"why don't people view a car solely as a means of transportation\"\" is not a financial question but a psychological one. The answer to \"\"why do people buy new cars\"\" is \"\"because people do not view cars solely as a means of transportation\"\". I recently bought a used car, and while looking around at different ones I visited a car lot. When the dealer heard which car I was interested in, he said, \"\"So, I guess you're looking for a transportation car.\"\" I thought to myself, \"\"Duh. Is there any other kind?\"\" But the fact that someone can say something like that indicates that there are many people who are looking for something other than a \"\"transportation car\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "020e7b03bd2546714cf636928de96efc",
"text": "Most people when asked what would they do with $X dollars say: Pay debt (their own / loved ones) Buy a nice house Buy a nice car Travel 460 million is plenty to do all those things. With the rest I'd start a bond ladder and try to live off the interest",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "471649a91d866690eaed3d821dc0c8de",
"text": "That sounds interesting.. As I was looking through some articles on [wealth management](http://www.millionairemindevents.com/) the same question came into my mind. Where did money originated. It would be interesting to read some books about it. Thanks for the suggestion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb0927a7b7d0b22ddb6786217aef90d2",
"text": "I don't know what you are asking. Can you give me an example of what fits the question? That you use phrases like profit extraction make me think we have a different assumption base, so I think we have to find common syntactic ground before we can exchange ideas in a meaningful way. I would like to do so, though, so I hope you respond.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb83cd6d3176913addf1ddabb97b7f53",
"text": "\"My wife and I maintain seperate accounts. We have the bills split between us so that certain bills are paid by one of us, and other bills by the other. This is not a perfect 50/50 split as we don't make the same amount of money, but comparable enough that neither feels like they're doing all the bills alone. Our investments are similar. That means we each have a pool of money that we can spend on toys or entertainment as we see fit without overspending. Once my bills are paid and my savings are paid for the month, if I want to go buy some DVDs and my wife wants to buy a new lens for the camera, we don't have to agree. We just use our own money and do it. For us that's led to minimal friction or arguments over what to spend money on, simply because we aren't using the same pool. Getting it work requires getting the split right AND having the mindset that the other person is just as entitled to spend their share of the money as you are to spend yours. It really helps to eliminate issues where she spent money that I expected to be able to spend before I could, which can happen in a joint account. (We have no joint accounts, only things like the mortgage are in both our names.) I've been told by more then one person that how we're doing it is \"\"wrong\"\", but it works a lot better for us then trying to combine finances ever did. I think it also helps that we're younger, and this seems far less common amongst older couples.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9473fa5cb17dd3d872a3f4a3bd21709a",
"text": "Credit in general having no significant change between an income level or net worth is due to the economic reciprocity principle inherent in many societies. Although some areas of credit may be more admirable to those who aren't as well-off, such as car loans, the overall understanding of credit is a trust agreement between someone getting something (e.g., credit card user) and someone giving something (e.g., bank or company). Credit doesn't have to mean just money -- it can be anything of value, including tangible materials, services, etc. The fact is that a credit is a common element in most economical systems, and as such its use is not really variable between income levels/etc. Sure, there is variance in things like credit line amounts and rewards, but the overall gist is the same for everyone -- borrowing, paying back, benefits, etc. All of these exchanges form the same understanding we all know and follow. Credit brings along with it trust -- the form represented in a score. While not everyone may depend entirely on credit, and no one should use credit as a means of getting by entirely (money), everyone can understand and reap the benefits of a system whether they make 10K a year of 10M a year. This is the general idea behind credit in the broadest sense possible. Besides, just because one has or makes more money doesn't mean they don't prefer to get good deals. Nobody should like being taken advantage of, and if credit can help, anyone can establish trust.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c3ad69f3406cfc97221006ac56ff164",
"text": "Have an upvote. I don't really understand the issue of money competition. There really isn't anything stopping me from putting my wealth in any other currency, or any other store of value for that matter (gold, stocks, bonds, lollipops, prison cigarettes). The value of a domestic currency is affected by the relative value of these others.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f7944fde3b721971bc5d1cc75f7c3f7",
"text": "\"> Because: people with lots of money don’t spend it. They just sit on it, like Smaug in his cave. Do they actually sit on cash - or are those \"\"money\"\" invested into factories and companies? When you have more \"\"money\"\" than you can spend in a lifetime, those are not the same \"\"money\"\" you had then you were struggling day by day - they are power and control over livelihoods of others, and not your own livelihood... People with money are like politicians that no one voted for but that were elected nonetheless.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06e5cec01e37f8eb72bb05d352980cf3",
"text": ">if you don’t have a lot of money, the presence of a sizable sum in the house or even in the bank means that you’ll be constantly tempted to dip into it. The psychology behind statements like this are a source of amusement to me. They seem to presuppose that those who have less money are bad with it, kind of a chicken and egg issue that assumes one over the other. It makes me think that authors, researchers and opiners have likely never felt the degree of financial insecurity that drives behaviors such as the ones being discussed. If you don't have a lot of money, the possession of a sizable sum presents other problems, such as issues of needs and purchases that have been put off due to a lack of resources while you prioritized for survival. You put off buying the washing machine because your car needed repairs, how else were you going to be able to get to work? You can limp by using a laundromat or doing laundry at your parents' house. But you likely put off all sorts of other needs as well, and now you have to find the best way to allocate a sizable sum that likely isn't going to be enough to address all of the needs you have put off. While you're trying to decide how to best allocate this resource, don't forget the talking heads that lecture you on the importance of an emergency fund. Disregard for a moment that when cash is such a scarce resource, any unexpectedly dire circumstance which would be best resolved by your having more of it probably constitutes an emergency.",
"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": "1b8b1ccf5da9d12db5f771d27f4f5d92",
"text": "Echoing JohnF, and assuming you mean the physical, rather than abstract meaning of money? The abstract concept obviously isn't replaced (unless the currency is discredited, or like the creation of the Euro which saw local currencies abandoned). The actual bits of paper are regularly collected, shredded (into itty-bitty-bits) and destroyed. Coinage tends to last a lot longer, but it also collected and melted down eventually. Depends on the country, though. No doubt, many people who took a gap year to go travelling in points diverse came across countries where the money is a sort of brown-grey smudge you hold with care in thick wadges. The more modern economies replace paper money on a dedicated cycle (around three years according to Wikipedia, anyway).",
"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": "eb3441ad32525ab242231c247a860201",
"text": "\"There is also the very simple fact that cash is a *significantly* self-limiting thing: you are limited in amount you can spend on any give day to the cash you have on hand -- this along makes you either reticent to spend it, forces you to spread your purchases (or forgo one in order to enable another), and/or requires additional planning to spend larger amounts. Conversely, most debit & credit cards while they also have some limits on them, enable far more free spending. So whether the spending of cash is a negative \"\"painful\"\" reaction, or really just an awareness that their available resource is being reduced, would be a better question. After all, similar things are seen in other things that have short-term physical limits: smokers tend to smoke cigarettes more quickly at the beginning of a new pack, and tend to space out the intervals between them as the pack empties; likewise with other resources (food, beer, soda) within a home -- if/when the supply is abundant, we tend to gorge & snack, as the available supply decreases, we cut back.\"",
"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": "add0339c544855d4a40c557705a5dc6b",
"text": "Ultimately the bank will have first call on the house and you will be the only one on the hook directly to the bank if you don't make the mortgage payments. There's nothing you can do to avoid that if you can't get a joint mortgage. What you could do is make a side agreement that your girlfriend would be entitled to half the equity in the house, and would be required to make half the payments (via you). You could perhaps also add that she would be part responsible for helping you clear any arrears. But in the end it'd just be a deal between you and her. She wouldn't have any direct rights over the house and she wouldn't be at risk of the bank pursuing her if you don't pay the mortgage. You'd probably also need legal advice to make it watertight, but you could also not worry about that too much and just write it all down as formally as possible. It really depends if you're just trying to improve your feelings about the process or whether you really want something that you could both rely on in the event of a later split. I don't think getting married would make any make any real difference day-to-day. In law, with rare exceptions, the finances of spouses are independent from each other. However in the longer term, being married would mean your now-wife would have a stronger legal claim on half the equity in the house in the event of you splitting up.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3dd8a649f544eb80cd8d17e7d98e0130
|
OTC Stocks - HUGE gains?
|
[
{
"docid": "8464ec00bb93cce30fd1c641eb28b6a6",
"text": "\"Changing my answer based on clarification in comments. It appears that some of the securities you mentioned, including GEAPP, are traded on what is colloquially known as the Grey Market. Grey Sheets, and also known as the \"\"Gray Market\"\" is another category of OTC stocks that is completely separate from Pink Sheets and the OTCBB. From investopedia The grey market is an over-the-counter market where dealers may execute orders for preferred customers as well as provide support for a new issue before it is actually issued. This activity allows underwriters and the issuer to determine demand and price the securities accordingly before the IPO. Some additional information on this type of stocks. (Source) Unlike other financial markets... No recent bid or ask quotes are available because no market makers share data or quote such stocks. There is no quoting system available to record and settle trades. All Grey sheet trading is moderated by a broker and done between consenting individuals at a price they agree on. The only documentation that can be publicly found regarding the trades is when the last trade took place. No SEC registration and little SEC regulation. Regulation of Grey Sheet stocks takes place mainly on a state level. Unlike Pink Sheets, these stocks have no SEC registration to possess a stock symbol or to possess shares or trade shares of that stock. Such penny stocks, similar to Pink Sheets, are not required to file SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) financial and business reports. These stocks may not be solicited or advertised to the public unless a certain number of shares are qualified to be traded publicly under 504 of Regulation D. Extremely Illiquid. Gray sheet trading is infrequent, and for good reason... Difficult to trade, not advertised, difficult to follow the price, the least regulation possible, hard to find any information on the stock, very small market cap, little history, and most such stocks do not yet offer public shares. The lack of information (bids, history, financial reports) alone causes most investors to be very skeptical of Gray Sheets and avoid them altogether. Gray Sheets are commonly associated with Initial public offering (IPO) stocks or start up companies or spin-off companies, even though not all are IPO's, start-ups or spin-offs. Grey Sheets is also Home to delisted stocks from other markets. Some stocks on this financial market were once traded on the NASDAQ, OTCBB, or the Pink Sheets but ran into serious misfortune - usually financial - and thus failed to meet the minimum requirements of the registered SEC filings and/or stock exchange regulations for a financial market. Such stocks were delisted or removed and may begin trading on the Grey Sheets. So to answer your question, I think the cause of the wild swings is that: Great question, BTW.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1c2fb38a15c99bf28d50cb7d0d6e7c5a",
"text": "Merrill charges $500 flat fee to (I assume purchase) my untraded or worthless security. In my case, it's an OTC stock whose management used for a microcap scam, which resulted in a class action lawsuit, etc. but the company is still listed on OTC and I'm stuck with 1000s of shares. (No idea about the court decision)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "559b03198b6c4e4f85f0593d61c2a272",
"text": "I suggest you look at many stocks' price history, especially around earnings announcements. It's certainly a gamble. But an 8 to 10% move on a surprise earning announcement isn't unheard of. If you look at the current price, the strike price, and the return that you'd get for just exceeding the strike by one dollar, you'll find in some cases a 20 to 1 return. A real gambler would research and find companies that have had many earnings surprises in the past and isolate the options that make the most sense that are due to expire just a few days after the earnings announcement. I don't recommend that anyone actually do this, just suggesting that I understand the strategy. Edit - Apple announced earnings. And, today, in pre-market trading, over an 8% move. The $550 calls closed before the announcement, trading under $2.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5143955b19fc35d10f4d972ba0c77714",
"text": "I've never heard of such a thing, but seems like if such a product existed it would be easily manipulated by the big trading firms - simply bet that trading volume will go up, then furiously buy and sell shares yourself to artificially drive up the volume. The fact that it would be so easily manipulated makes me think that no such product exists, but I could be wrong.",
"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": "3ae22710c80a01cf0fa6319f8862dcff",
"text": "Apparent data-feed issues coming out of NASDAQ in the after hours market. Look at MSFT, AMZN, AAPL, heck even Sears. Funny thing though, is that you see traces of irregular prices during the active session around 10:20am on stocks like GOOG.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11678be613ffb04fe7c22d4908c9664f",
"text": "\"Penny stocks are only appealing to the brokers who sell the penny stocks and the companies selling \"\"penny stock signals!\"\". Generally penny stocks provide abysmal returns to the average investor (you or me). In \"\"The Missing Risk Premium\"\", Falkenstein does a quick overview on average returns to penny stock investors citing the following paper \"\"Do Investors Overpay for Stocks with Lottery-Like Payoffs? An Examination of the Returns on OTC Stocks\"\". Over the 2000 to 2009 time period, average investors lost nearly half their investment. A comparable investment in the S&P over this period would have been flat see here. There is a good table in the book/paper showing that the average annual return for stocks priced at either a penny or ten cents range from -10 percent (for medium volume) to -30% to -40% for low or high volume. A different paper, \"\"Too Good to Ignore? A Primer on Listed Penny Stocks\"\" that cites the one above finds that listed, as opposed to OTC \"\"Pink Sheet\"\" penny stocks\"\", have better returns, but provide no premium for the additional risk and low liquidity. The best advice here is that there is no \"\"quick win\"\" in penny stocks. These act more like lottery tickets and are not appropriate for the average investor. Stear clear!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "488d7260313244ca348d832376c70f03",
"text": "\"Gee son. That's a potential for a better than 10% gain in a short amount of time. If bought within a tax advantaged account like a IRA then you don't even pay capital gains. Does Lube know? Last I checked he was obsessing over \"\"bowels\"\" or some shit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5da3dbbbf01c01fc8c409241323433b",
"text": "\"If you own a stake large enough to do that, you became regulated - under Section 13(d) of the 1934 Act and Regulation (in case of US stock) and you became regulated. Restricting you from \"\"shocking\"\" market. Another thing is that your broker will probably not allow you to execute order like that - directed MKT order for such volume. And market is deeper than anyone could measure - darkpools and HFTs passively waiting for opportunities like that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df0f4088f7b0566b209ff366f0393d2f",
"text": "Patrick Byrne (CEO of Overstock.com) ran a somewhat interesting website awhile back called 'Deep Capture' which focused heavily on naked short selling and bear raids. He was called all sorts of names and many 'serious' journalist types brushed his allegations off. His basic argument was that a cabal of hedge funds would simultaneously naked short a specific equity and then a coordinated group of journalists and message board jockeys would disparage the company as loudly and publicly as possible, driving the price down. Naked shorting is supposed to be illegal since you can hold the types of positions like in the linked article about Citigroup where the number of shares sold short actually exceeds the number of shares in existence. The group he named was essentially a who's who of hedge funds and fraudsters and included many names of prominent politically active 'reformed' criminals from the S&L days on Wall St. I can't remember how the cards fell, but the scheme allegedly involved Michael Milliken, Sam Antar (from Crazy Eddie's Fraud), Gary Weiss, Jim Cramer, etc etc. It was a fascinating story. Byrne actually followed through with several lawsuits (one of which was settled after a Rocker Partners paid Byrne $5 million dollars to settle). The 'Deep Capture' site is down, but I [found a decent article](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html) that sums up some of the shenanigans, including a journalist sock-puppeting to edit Wikipedia, repeatedly denying it, being IP-traced to inside the DTCC building (the Wall St. entity responsible for clearing trades, including naked shorts).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05d0a9b80dfaa539fcfdccf1a7a9f29a",
"text": "\"The assumption that companies listed OTC are not serious is far from the truth. Many companies on the OTC are just starting off there because they don't meet the requirements to be listed on the NASDAQ or NYSE. Major stock exchanges like the NASDAQ and the NYSE only want the best companies to trade on their exchanges.The NASDAQ, for example, has three sets of listing requirements. A company must meet at least one of the three requirement sets, as well as the main rules for all companies. These include: Now don't assume that the OTC doesn't have rules either, as this is far from the truth as well. While there are no minimum level of revenue, profits or assets required to get listed on the OTC there are requirements for audited financial statements and ongoing filing and reporting to the SEC and NASD. Additionally there are several different levels of the OTC, including the OTCQX, the OTCCB and the OTC Pink, each with their own set of requirements. For more information about what it takes to be listed on OTC look here: http://www.otcmarkets.com/learn/otc-trading A company deciding to trade on the OTC is making the decision to take their company public, and they are investing to make it happen. Currently the fees to get listed on the OTC range from $30,000 to $150,000 depending on the firm you decide to go with and the services they offer as part as their package. Now, I know I wouldn't consider $30K (or more) to not be serious money! When I looked into the process of getting a company listed on the TSX the requirements seemed a lot more relaxed than those of the major U.S. markets as well, consisting of an application, records submission and then a decision made by a TSX committee about whether you get listed. More information about the TSX here: http://apps.tmx.com/en/listings/listing_with_us/process/index.html I think the way that the OTC markets have gotten such a bad reputation is from these \"\"Get Rich on Penny Stock\"\" companies that you see pumping up OTC company stocks and getting massive amounts of people to buy without doing their due diligence and investigating the company and reading its prospectus. Then when they loose a bunch of money on an ill-informed investment decision they blame it on the company being an OTC stock. Whether you decide to trade the OTC market or not, I wouldn't make a decision based on how many exchanges the company is listed on, but rather based on the research you do into the company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a623b857a1f8ae1fe38715f36187cfe4",
"text": "The charts suggest otherwise. Although most of the large gains were wiped out in 2008 and 2011, that doesn't include the substantial dividends you are likely to get with financials. They still returned a positive percentage and some outperformed benchmark indices over time. But hey, don't let your bias get in the way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f1551afd1abb120bab92dc358d48309",
"text": "One thing I like to do every once in a while is look at the day's market movers. It's a list of symbols that had huge movement. There tend to be a couple of 50+% movers every time I look. In fact today I see ATV moved up 414.48%: So there it is—doubling your investment in one day and then some is technically possible. The problem is that the market movers chart also has an equal number of symbols that had major movements in the other direction. Today's winner is: SPCB lost 40% in one day, and thats the problem. If you invest in anything that can double your investment in one year, it can also halve your investment in one year. Or do better. Or do worse. You really don't know because the volatility is so high.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a561affc61fa20962143e8ad43eb4b9e",
"text": "\"Be wary of pump and dump schemes. This scheme works like this: When you observe that \"\"From time to time the action explodes with 100 or 200% gains and volumes exceeding one million and it then back down to $ 0.02\"\", it appears that this scheme was performed repeatedly on this stock. When you see a company with a very, very low stock price which claims to have a very bright future, you should ask yourself why the stock is so low. There are professional stock brokers who have access to the same information you have, and much more. So why don't they buy that stock? Likely because they realize that the claims about the company are greatly exaggerated or even completely made up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3cdb856877006ce8e902213aa1551b6",
"text": "The more the stock is worth, the more it needs to rise to make a profit. You can buy some stock from Google or amazon, but that's about all the stock you'd have... Start small with companies you know and trust that have an upward trend.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
25d446c9fa7bcba2122e22adf0983759
|
Are there any rules against penalizing consumers for requesting accurate credit reporting?
|
[
{
"docid": "724f4aa42a46fe16ff32b4f2087a57a4",
"text": "I think you're off base here. The bureaus only remove information if the creditor cannot verify any dispute within 30 days, or if the information's super old. If the creditor can provide corrected information, then the credit bureau is required to apply it to its own database. A dispute can be about the entire account, or it can be about payment status within a given span (or spans) of time. Of course, it's the consumer who has to initiate the dispute.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2ae18b2ef3ae9d1111258c6199420f3",
"text": "\"To answer the heart of your question, it would be illegal for any credit bureau or creditor to somehow \"\"penalize\"\" you just for trying to make sure that what's being reported about you is accurate. That's why the Fair Credit Reporting Act exists -- that's where the rights (and mechanisms) come from for letting you learn about and request accurate reporting of your credit history. Every creditor is responsible for reporting its own data to the bureaus, using the format provided by those bureaus for doing so. A creditor may not provide all of the information that can be reported, and it may not report information in as timely a manner as it could or should (e.g., payments made may not show up for weeks or even months after they were made, etc.). The bottom line is that the credit bureaus are not arbiters of the data they report. They simply report. They don't draw conclusions, they don't make decisions on what data to report. If a creditor provides data that is within the parameters of what the bureaus ask to be provided, then the bureaus report precisely that -- nothing more, nothing less. If there is an inaccuracy or mistake on your report, it is the fault (and responsibility) of the creditor, and it is therefore up to the creditor to correct it once it has been brought to their attention. Federal laws spell out the process that the bureau has to comply with when you file a dispute, and there are strict standards requiring the creditor to promptly verify valid information or remove anything which is not correct. The credit bureaus are simply automated clearinghouses for the information provided by the creditors who choose to subscribe to each bureau's system. A creditor can choose which (or none) of the bureaus they wish to report to, which is why some accounts show on one bureau's report on you but not another's. What I caution is, just because a credit bureaus reports on your credit doesn't mean they have anything to do with the accuracy or detail of what is being reported. That's up to the creditors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f462b06916d07c943fdcbd061e8ed327",
"text": "\"The Fair Credit Reporting Act specifies in some detail on pages 50-54 (as labeled in the footer, 55-59 as pages in pdf) the process that occurs when a consumer initiates a dispute. The safe outcome for the reporting agency is to remove the information in dispute from reports within 30 days if the reporting party does not certify the information is complete and accurate (with other statutory timelines for communication to the customer and the reporter). If you initiate a dispute, then the agency is following the law by deleting the reported information, outside new input from the furnisher. If this is unsatisfactory, you have the following statutory right within § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i (d) Notification of deletion of disputed information. Following any deletion of information which is found to be inaccurate or whose accuracy can no longer be verified or any notation as to disputed information, the consumer reporting agency shall, at the request of the consumer, furnish notification that the item has been deleted or the statement, codification or summary pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this section to any person specifically designated by the consumer who has within two years prior thereto received a consumer report for employment purposes, or within six months prior thereto received a consumer report for any other purpose, which contained the deleted or disputed information. The section that binds furnishers of information (§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2], starting on page 78 in the footer) places on them the following specific duties: (B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. ... (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person’s transactions or experiences with any consumer; and (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. So there you have it: they have to stop reporting inaccurate information, and \"\"promptly\"\" notify the credit agency once they've determined what is incomplete or inaccurate. I note no specific statutory timeline for this investigation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f701d2150bdb4cf1031c23205676031e",
"text": "Note that this kind of entry on your credit record may also affect your ability to get a job. Basically, you're going on record as not honoring your commitments... and unless you have a darned good reason for having gotten into that situation and being completely unable to get back out, it's going to reflect on your general trustworthiness.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30901c7d3c65259b32942bbbe49329e5",
"text": "\"According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act: any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report [...] to a person which it has reason to believe [...] intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer See p12 (section 604). The usual interpretation of this that I've heard is that a debt collection agency that owns or has been assigned a debt can make hard pulls on your credit report without your consent. This link seems to support that (and references the same part of the act, among others): According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, [...], any business can access your credit history without your permission provided the business has a valid \"\"permissible purpose.\"\" The FCRA notes that one such permissible purpose is to review your credit information in connection with the collection of a debt. Thus, if you owe money to a debt collector, the debt collector has the legal right to pull and review your credit report. If they haven't been assigned the debt or own it outright, I believe you have a legal right to dispute it. Consult a lawyer if this is actually a situation you face. Once use for this is if the debt collection agency has trouble locating you; since your credit report normally contains current and past addresses, this is one way to locate you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5321915957dbd7eed1e4a418570a98a9",
"text": "Generally speaking, when you are asked whether you consent to a credit check, what is implied is that your identifying information is shared to enable that check. Most credit nowadays (credit, mortgage, car lease, even cell phone accounts etc.) is simply unavailable without a credit check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf5e1d8139cc9fd9701f60f3b7da9db8",
"text": "To answer the specific question of whether you can get the bill reduced without hurting your credit, yes, as long as the bill never goes to collections, there's no reason it should ever show up on your credit report. Will they reduce your bill without sending it to collections first? Maybe. All you can do is ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d658ec44180f29805ca51c8ea691f81",
"text": "If the bad credit items are accurate, disputing the accuracy of the items seems at best, unethical. If the bad credit items are inaccurate, the resolution process provided by each of the 3 credit bureaus, while time consuming, seems the way to go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdde16f02a47c59d0ba7b213478cdd88",
"text": "Oh yes, it is absolutely the problem of the consumers. After all how is the bank to know how it should be doing business unless the customer explains it to them? Please read the other comments about how the customer has verified receipt of some critical document and then they claim that they don't have it. Sure they are very nice on the phone, but that doesn't help when I have to take time out of my work day to call them repeatedly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "860640df9cc44d389d0eb0b7a084e461",
"text": "Wrong sub. You're looking for /r/personalfinance >will freezing just that credit report hurt them in any way? No, but it will help prevent an identity thief from wrecking your credit. >Can I still get a loan with only one of the three frozen? Depends, but yes. You should freeze your credit at all 5 credit bureaus for personal financial protections.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea8d8ca2cbfd0d49d51c3f29710d3c41",
"text": "A landlord or any creditor can still put negative information in your credit report without your social security number - it just takes a bit more sleuthing on their part. If you want perfect credit, either 1. don't break your lease; 2. break it with the written permission of the landlord (by paying some compensation, for example); or 3. break it with legal permission by asking a court to vacate the terms of the lease.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7a2a240a86664d6f18364f20a1d5229",
"text": "Specific to the inquiries, from my Impact of Credit Inquiries article - 8 is at the high end pulling your score down until some time passes. As MB stated, long term expanding your credit will help, but short term, it's a bit of a hit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9dc5d9adefc54650c4af8dcbc26666a",
"text": "\"Assuming I don't need any other new lines of credit, can I get pre-qualified repeatedly (and with different banks) with impunity? Yes, but only for a limited period. FICO says: Hard inquiries are inquiries where a potential lender is reviewing your credit because you've applied for credit with them. These include credit checks when you've applied for an auto loan, mortgage or credit card. Each of these types of credit checks count as a single inquiry. One exception occurs when you are \"\"rate shopping\"\". That's a smart thing to do, and your FICO score considers all inquiries within a 45 period for a mortgage, an auto loan or a student loan as a single inquiry. However for your situation, since you won't be getting a loan for several months, getting inquiries more than 45 days apart will each count as a separate inquiry.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a527b30097928edd73bebb529339ae",
"text": "This discussion indicates that the accounts are not reported to credit agencies, but the post is also over a year old, and who knows how reliable the information is (it's fairly well-traveled, though). It's based on one person calling up Trans Union and E-Trade and asking people directly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d6937810c10c24969fcd83f1852c5c1",
"text": "No credit bureau wants incorrect data, for obvious reasons, but it happens. That's one reason why they let you get access to your credit score, to check it the data is correct and make the 'product' (data about you) better. Nope, that's not why you can get free access to your credit report. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is why. FCRA requires any credit reporting agency to provide you a free report upon request every 12 months. Prior to this law, credit agencies made you pay to see your report including if you wanted it to dispute errors. They only care about the dollars they get from having this data. FCRA removed one of their revenue streams. If free locking moves forward, that will remove another. So expect them to fight it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "520c3b7c1574bae440ae4717f708e0b5",
"text": "The two things are materially different. Point number 1. With a credit card, the bank (and card network) earn a fee every time you spend on your card. You swipe a $100 dinner, the credit card company makes about $3. You pay it back, they may not make any interest but they've made their $3. Additionally, if you have a $1,000,000 credit limit, you've only actually borrowed $100; which brings me to point number 2. Point number 2. A credit limit of $X is not in any way the same as a loan for $X. When you seek a personal loan, the lender hands you money in equal amount to your loan, less any origination fees that may apply. Your loan for $8,000 results in $8,000 being wired to your account. Your credit limit is only a loan when you actually charge something. Until then its a simple (adjustable) risk limit set by the bank's underwriters. Point number 3. Your credit report contains no income information. It's up to the lender to determine what sort of risk they're willing to take. Some personal lenders are just fine with stated income and employer contact information. Some lenders want to see some pay-stubs. Some lenders will lend $X on stated income but won't lend $X+1 without income verification. Some will lend the money at a lower interest rate if you do prove your income and employment. It's all lender specific. Credit card issuers are clearly lax on the income verification piece of the equation because of points number 1 and 2. Point number 4. If you're getting a loan for your required mortgage down-payment you are a much bigger repayment risk than you realize.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6a1efbb3365189d832491c16e1d7abf",
"text": "It may be tempting to be financially lenient with your customers as you start to build business relationships, but doing so may ultimately jeopardize your profitability. Establish clear payment terms on all invoices and documents, including a reasonable penalty (start with eight percent) over the invoice amount if the total is not paid within the standard payment terms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f98231a9dd5399b44298bd3ba912d2a",
"text": "\"you can relate everything on a credit report, and how things are calculated, to life scenarios. thats a 100% fact, and thats what people need to go by when designing their credit dicipline/diet. utilization: any kind of resource in life. water, food, energy, and etc. who would you want to live with more, the guy that just eats way too much, uses way too much energy than they need, and wastes way more water than they need? assuming there was no water cycle. payment history: speaks for itself derogatory remarks: s*** happens. thats what makes life life, but when given chances to fix your mistakes and own up to them, like i and every other responsible adult have done, and you dont, thats living up to the exact definition of derogatory. disrespecting and not caring. who wants to lend to someone who doesnt care? so if youre not gonna care, we will just put this special little remark in the derogatory section and show that you dont care about when you make mistakes. f*** it right? lol. well, thats what that section is for. showing you wont try to fix things when they go sour. if i had a guy who was fixing my roof, and did a bad job, but did everything he could to fix it, i wouldnt give him a bad rep at all. if a guy messed up my roof, and just said cya thanks for your money, hes getting a derogatory remark. credit age: just like life. showing the ability to maintain EVERY other aspect of a report for X amount of time. its like getting old as a person. after X amount of years, a lot of people will be able to say more about you as a person. whether youre a real male reproductive organ or an amazing guy. total accounts: is like taking on jobs as a self employed person or any business. if you have a lot of jobs, people must want you to do their work. it shows how people \"\"like you.\"\" hard inquiries: this is the one category of them all i dont fully agree on, can go either way, and i hate it. i really cant think of a life scenario to relate it to, so i kind of think its a prevention mechanism/keep a person in check kind of thing. like to save them from themself and save the lenders. for example, if a guy has great utilization, and just goes insane applying for credit cards, hell get everyone of them because hes showing almost no utilization. then said guy goes and looses his job, but since he racked up 50 cards at 1k each, now he can destroy 50k in credit. thats just my take, but thats EXACTLY how i look at it from TU/EX/EQs point of view.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
da1b6f2a0aa64412a3ce2806348b1caa
|
Where do traders take their prices data from? How can it be different from their brokers'?
|
[
{
"docid": "0a5caacca9c03cc06f281e38db8dad98",
"text": "\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4a81575af3a87fdd228d31a9cb7c732",
"text": "To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE: I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter. Many of these stocks are amusingly scary): http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f7ff0489f0eabd8d4d808b9215088b15",
"text": "You can get this data from a variety of sources, but likely not all from 1 source. Yahoo is a good source, as is Google, but some stock markets also give away some of this data, and there's foreign websites which provide data for foreign exchanges. Some Googling is required, as is knowledge of web scraping (R, Python, Ruby or Perl are great tools for this...).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f63804cc8a6be41a80a62605fa0d1d5c",
"text": "Bloomberg is very popular, especially for researching individual companies. Market QA and Factset are popular for analyzing data. Microsoft Excel and Matlab are very common for analyzing the data. Lots of time traders will take data from Bloomberg, Market QA, Factset or where ever, and then actually preform their analytics in Excel or Matlab. A lot of the brokers provide their own software to traders using their platform, and that software can also contain different tools to help the traders as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d65931bcdd9257af1f8355851a61b1f3",
"text": "A day is a long time and the rate is not the same all day. Some sources will report a close price that averages the bid and ask. Some sources will report a volume-weighted average. Some will report the last transaction price. Some will report a time-weighted average. Some will average the highest and lowest prices for the interval. Different marketplaces will also have slightly different prices because different traders are present at each marketplace. Usually, the documentation will explain what method they use and you can choose the source whose method makes the most sense for your application.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45aaf754b277715c534239e40d20050a",
"text": "To dig a little deeper, a number of analysts within (and without) Reuters are polled for their views on individual stocks and markets on buy-hold-sell. The individual analysts will be a varied bunch of fundamentalists, technical, quant and a mixture of the three plus more arcane methodologies. There may be various levels of rumors that aren't strong enough to be considered insider trading, but all of these will give an analyst an impression of the stock/market. Generally I think there isn't much value there, except from the point of view if you are a contrarian trader, then this will form a part of the input to your trading methodology.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df4f9ad35e6130f0848cb17ea7098847",
"text": "While a lot of trading is executed by computers, a substantial amount is still done at the behest of humans. Brokers managing accounts, Portfolio Managers, and Managers of Mutual Funds doing stock picks etc. Those folks are still initiating a very large number of the trades (or at least one side of a trade). And those humans don't work 7 days a week. it's not just computers talking to computers at the behest of other computers. And even a lot of places that use computers to create models and such, there are still humans in the loop to ensure that the computers are not ordering something stupid to be done. I personally worked for a firm that managed nearly $20Billion in stock portfolios. The portfolios were designed to track indexes, or a mix of indexes and actively managed funds, but with the addition of managing for tax efficiency. A lot of complex math and complicated 'solver' programs that figured out each day what if anything to trade in each portfolio. Despite all those computers, humans still reviewed all the trades to be sure they made sense. And those humans only worked 5 days a week.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14556b7424799161a61983bc30edf827",
"text": "They don't have to track each other, it could just be listed on more than one exchange. The price on one exchange does not have to match or track the price on the other exchange. This is actually quite common, as many companies are listed on two or more exchanges around the world.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd85d07d09d329585823370209e3755a",
"text": "\"I may be underestimating your knowledge of how exchanges work; if so, I apologize. If not, then I believe the answer is relatively straightforward. Lets say price of a stock at time t1 is 15$ . There are many types of price that an exchange reports to the public (as discussed below); let's say that you're referring to the most recent trade price. That is, the last time a trade executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller was at $15.00. Lets say a significant buy order of 1M shares came in to the market. Here I believe might be a misunderstanding on your part. I think you're assuming that the buy order must necessarily be requesting a price of $15.00 because that was the last published price at time t1. In fact, orders can request any price they want. It's totally okay for someone to request to buy at $10.00. Presumably nobody will want to sell to him, but it's still a perfectly valid buy order. But let's continue under the assumptions that at t1: This makes the bid $14.99 and the ask $15.00. (NYSE also publishes these prices.) There aren't enough people selling that stock. It's quite rare (in major US equities) for anyone to place a buy order that exceeds the total available shares listed for sale at all prices. What I think you mean is that 1M is larger than the amount of currently-listed sell requests at the ask of $15.00. So say of the 1M only 100,000 had a matching sell order and others are waiting. So this means that there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be sold at the ask of $15.00, and that all other sellers currently in the market told NYSE they were only willing to sell for a price of $15.01 or higher. If there had been more shares available at $15.00, then NYSE would have matched them. This would be a trigger to the automated system to start increasing the price. Here is another point of misunderstanding, I think. NYSE's automated system does not invent a new, higher price to publish at this point. Instead it simply reports the last trade price (still $15.00), and now that all of the willing sellers at $15.00 have been matched, NYSE also publishes the new ask price of $15.01. It's not that NYSE has decided $15.01 is the new price for the stock; it's that $15.01 is now the lowest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to sell. If nobody happened to be interested in selling at $15.01 at t1, but there were people interested in selling at $15.02, then the new published ask would be $15.02 instead of $15.01 -- not because NYSE decided it, but just because those happened to be the facts at the time. Similarly, the new bid is most likely now $15.00, assuming the person who placed the order for 1M shares did not cancel the remaining unmatched 900,000 shares of his/her order. That is, $15.00 is now the highest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to buy. How much time does the automated system wait to increment the price, the frequency of the price change and by what percentage to increment etc. So I think the answer to all these questions is that the automated system does none of these things. It merely publishes information about (a) the last trade price, (b) the price that is currently the lowest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to sell, and (c) the price that is currently the highest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to buy. ::edit:: Oh, I forgot to answer your primary question. Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? Not only can we estimate the impact, but we can know it explicitly. Because the exchange publishes information on all the orders it knows about, anyone tracking that information can deduce that (in this example) there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be purchased at $15.00. So if a \"\"large buy order\"\" of 1M shares comes in at $15.00, then we know that all of the people waiting to sell at $15.00 will be matched, and the new lowest ask price will be $15.01 (or whatever was the next lowest sell price that the exchange had previously published).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb67ec3740545851f323621075d7a83c",
"text": "There are about 250 trading days in a year. There are also about 1,900 stocks listed on the NYSE. What you're asking for would require about 6.2M rows of data. Depending on the number of attributes you're likely looking at a couple GB of data. You're only getting that much information through an API or an FTP.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c974fce2e0de21ef5938bef66aad614f",
"text": "\"Using your example link, I found the corresponding chart for a stock that trades on London Stock Exchange: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=RIO.L#symbol=RIO.L;range=1d As you can see there, the chart runs from ~8:00am to ~4:30pm, and as I write this post it is only 2:14pm Eastern Time. So clearly this foreign chart is using a foreign time zone. And as you can see from this Wikipedia page, those hours are exactly the London Stock Exchange's hours. Additionally, the closing price listed above the graph has a timestamp of \"\"11:35AM EST\"\", meaning that the rightmost timestamp in the graph (~4:30pm) is equal to 11:35AM EST. 16:30 - 11:30 = 5 hours = difference between London and New York at this time of year. So those are two data points showing that Yahoo uses the exchange's native time zone when displaying these charts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20064feafb979b8e5119dc642d0de4de",
"text": "I don't quite understand the NYSE argument that the credit system helps NASDAQ undercut NYSE on pricing and force brokers to trade on NASDAQ. I thought if you were trading a stock listed on NASDAQ, you traded through them and if you were trading a stock listed on NYSE, you'd trade over there. The choice of exchange coming down to the stocks you want to trade more than anything. Are the exchanges also acting as endpoints on trades for securities listed on the other exchange?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f59842b4cc87ff6f7e622e7c1b8a5f5e",
"text": "\"Pay to play? You mean they pay for beefier data feeds that other firms don't need, sure they do. But everyone can trade on the US exchanges now (NYSE, NASDAQ, BATS, etc) which was not true 20 years ago when NYSE had the specialist monopoly, so yes the markets are more democratic than they've ever been. Side note, the exchanges do directly profit from increased trading volume because they take a small % of every trade, so I'm not sure what you mean they don't directly profit from it. Also I get the feeling you don't understand the scope of HFT activity, HFT peak profits were on the order of 7 billion during the highest volume time of the last decade (2005-2010). They are now around 1B. Compared to the trillions of dollars that change hands in the exchange per year, this is chump change, hardly a \"\"free money faucet\"\". Also Katsayuma opened yet another dark pool that caters to high volume clients (your goldmans and merrils). The only difference in IEX is it got a free marketing campaign to entice clients. Seriously, IEX is nothing more than the existing fixed cross dark pools, which btw screws over retail investors more than the lit exchanges like NASDAQ. Katsayuma got steamrolled in his executions because he couldn't keep up with the time and then hit the lottery jackpot by getting Michael Lewis to paint him as a \"\"hero\"\", honestly I'm confounded at how lucky that dude got. BTW broker dealers get preferential treatment in IEX, meaning they get to cut in front of the line in front of retail investors. Why are you so opinionated about this, did you make a few bad trades on eTrade and need a scapegoat?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81b2cf5a5cb0269137c111942a5668d4",
"text": "the data source is the same as the live market trading. pre and after market trading are active markets and there are actual buyers and sellers getting their orders matched.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e09b473dcb81d2f1f51efcea3d3b24c7",
"text": "\"That's like a car dealer advertising their \"\"huge access\"\" to Chevrolet. All brokers utilize dark pools nowadays, either their own or one belonging to a larger financial institution. Why? Because that's a primary source of broker income. Example: Under current US regulations the broker is under no obligation to pass these orders to actual (a.k.a. lit) exchanges. Instead it can internalize them in its dark pool as long as it \"\"improves the price\"\". So: If a broker doesn't run its own dark pool, then it sends the orders to the dark pool run by a larger institution (JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, Getco, Knight Capital) and gets some fraction of the dark pool's profit in return. Are Mom and Pop negatively impacted by this? Not for most order types. They each even got a free penny out of the deal! But if there were no dark pools, that $1.00 difference between their trade prices would have gone half ($0.50) to Mom's counterparty and half ($0.50) to Pop's counterparty, who could be someone else's Mom and someone else's Pop. So ... that's why brokers all use dark pools, and why their advertisement of their dark pool access is silly. They're basically saying, \"\"We're going to occasionally throw you a free penny while making 49 times that much from you\"\"! (Note: Now apply the above math to a less liquid product than AAPL. Say, where the spread is not $0.01, but more like $0.05. Now Mom and Pop still might make a penny each, while the broker can make $4.98 on a 100 share trade!)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1c3ef346e865a00ed0f22d1e57bf6c2",
"text": "You might have better luck using Quandl as a source. They have free databases, you just need to register to access them. They also have good api's, easier to use than the yahoo api's Their WIKI database of stock prices is curated and things like this are fixed (www.quandl.com/WIKI ), but I'm not sure that covers the London stock exchange. They do, however, have other databases that cover the London stock exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d0eea67fe2108b2e5558e46e014ed1d0
|
Received an unexpected cashiers check for over $2K from another state - is this some scam?
|
[
{
"docid": "26df5f84fc25ddd998b843eefed72589",
"text": "\"It is likely a scam. In fact the whole mystery shopping \"\"job\"\" may be a scam. There is a Snopes page about cashier's check scams, as well as a US government page which specifically mentions mystery shopping as a scam angle. As for how the scam works, from the occ.gov site I just linked: However, cashier’s checks lately have become an attractive vehicle for fraud when used for payments to consumers. Although, the amount of a cashier’s check quickly becomes \"\"available\"\" for withdrawal by the consumer after the consumer deposits the check, these funds do not belong to the consumer if the check proves to be fraudulent. It may take weeks to discover that a cashier’s check is fraudulent. In the meantime, the consumer may have irrevocably wired the funds to a scam artist or otherwise used the funds—only to find out later, when the fraud is detected—that the consumer owes the bank the full amount of the cashier’s check that had been deposited. It is somewhat unusual in that, from what you say, there has been no attempt thus far to get money back. However, your sister-in-law may have received that info separately, or received it as part of her mystery shopping job but didn't mention it to you with regard to this check. Typically the scam involves telling the recipient to transfer money to a third party (e.g., by buying goods as a mystery shopper, or via wire transfer to \"\"reimburse\"\" someone associated with a sham operation). By the time the cashier's check is revealed as fraudulent, the victim has already transferred away his/her own real money. It's probably worth taking the check to your or her bank and asking them about it. They may have more info. Also, banks usually want to know about scams like this because, in the long run, they accumulate data on them and share that with law enforcement and can eventually catch some of the scammers. Edit: Just to help anyone who may be reading this later. The letter you added confirms it is absolutely a scam. My boss was once contacted via a scam operation very similar to this. The huge red flag (in addition to others already mentioned) is that you are being \"\"given\"\" a check for over $2000, of which only $25 is purportedly for actual mystery shopping and $285 is payment for you, the mystery shopper. The whole rest of the $2000+ amount is for you to wire to \"\"another Mystery/Secret Shopper in order for them to complete their assignment\"\". They are giving you $2000 to give to someone else who is supposedly another one of their own employees/contractors. Ask yourself what sane business would conduct their operations in this way. If you work at a law office, or a hamburger stand, or a school, or anything you like, does your boss ever say \"\"Here is your paycheck for $5000. I know you only earned $1000, but I'm just going to give you the whole $5000, and you're supposed to use $4000 of it to pay your coworker Joe his wages.\"\" No. There is no reason to do that except that the \"\"other mystery shopper\"\" is actually the scammer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f44bebd232498c8619b1df1a8beae71",
"text": "This is a variation of a very common scam. The principle of the scam is this: I give you a check for a huge amount of money which you pay in your account. Then I ask you to pay some money from your account into a third account. Two months later the bank detects that my check was forged / stolen / cancelled / whatever and takes the huge amount of money away from your account. But you paid the money from your account, and that money is gone from your account and irrevocably ended up in my account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71dd227a1b8cfb5e02657bcf1c74a81b",
"text": "This is so very much a scam. The accepted answer already tells you the basics of it. In addition to the cheque being fake, there is also the possibility that the cheque is a legitimate cheque but has been stolen (or swindled off) from somebody else. In that case, the delay with which the cashing of the cheque will blow up can be considerably longer than the accepted answer states since it depends on the other victim noticing and reporting the fraudulent transfer. The end result is the same: you are not going to be allowed to keep the money. Report this to both your sister's bank as well as her local police. Nothing good can come off this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7b20c173c89a9774da13c26997b9ba7",
"text": "Some of these answers are actually wrong. Basically if you were to cash this cheque, you are committing bank fraud. The cheque is usually fake and ends up with them cashing it off your account--this is how cheques work, when you cash a cheque, you are the one ultimately responsible for the validity of what you're cashing. This is why large cheques are balanced against your active account--so what happens is they essentially just take money from you and leave you red handed.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c027ca3c29bb64ce40f09546520706ce",
"text": "I would go to the bank and just express the concern that the check sent to you might not fully clear. You don't want to spend it until you're sure it cleared. I'd ask for a manager to tell you when it will clear, then confirm after that date that it's cleared, with the same guy. Perhaps someone in the industry can explain how long the bank has before deciding the check is bad. 10 days? 2 weeks? Really, it should either clear or bounce by the second night. I'd not risk doing this for anyone. Anyone I know personally can cash their own check, and I'd not get involved with anyone I don't know on a financial matter like this. EDIT - See Littleadv comment below. Good checks clear fast, a forged check has time for the victim to go to the bank and challenge the signature and cashing of the check. The victim can have 60 days to do this. That's the issue, I am wrong, the bank manager couldn't confirm the check was good so soon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a1e6c5dee1dc728561808bbff5abb42",
"text": "\"The answer probably varies with local law, and you haven't said where you're located. In most or all US states, it appears that after some statutory length of time, the bank would transfer the money to the state government, where it would be held indefinitely as \"\"unclaimed property\"\" in the name of the recipient (technically, the payee, the person to whom the check is made payable). This process is called escheatment. Most states publish a list of all unclaimed property, so at some later date the payee could find their name on this list, and realize they were entitled to the funds. There would then be a process by which the payee could claim the funds from the state. Usually the state keeps any interest earned on the money. As far as I know, there typically wouldn't be any way for you, the person who originated the payment, to collect the money after escheatment. (Before escheatment, if you have the uncashed check in your possession, you can usually return it to the bank and have it refunded to you.) I had trouble finding an authoritative source explaining this, but a number of informal sources (found by Googling \"\"cashier check escheatment\"\") seem to agree that this is generally how it works. Here is the web site for a law firm, saying that in California an uncashed cashier's check escheats to the state after 3 years. Until escheatment occurs, the recipient can cash the check at any time. I don't think that cashier's checks become \"\"stale\"\" like personal checks do, and there isn't any situation in which the funds would automatically revert to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ef100bc0d7e435fdc5fbb103eef4366",
"text": "\"It's a scam. The cashier's check will be forged. Craigslist has a warning about it here (item #3). What kind of payment do you think is not fakable? Or at least not likely to be used in scams? When on craigslist - deal only locally and in person. You can ask to see the person's ID if you're being paid by check When being paid by check, how can seeing his/her ID help? In case the check isn't cashable, I can find that person by keeping record of his/her ID? If you're paid by check, the payers details should be printed on the check. By checking the ID you can verify that the details match (name/address), so you can find the payer later. Of course the ID can be faked too, but there's so much you can do to protect yourself. You'll get better protection (including verified escrow service) by selling on eBay. Is being paid by cash the safest way currently, although cash can be faked too, but it is the least common thing that is faked currently? Do you recommend to first deposit the cash into a bank (so that let the bank verify if the cash is faked), before delivering the good? For Craigslist, use cash and meet locally. That rules out most scams as a seller. What payment methods do you think are relatively safe currently? Then getting checks must be the least favorite way of being paid. Do you think cash is better than money order or cashier order? You should only accept cash. If it is a large transaction, you can meet them at your bank, have them get cash, and you receive the cash from the bank. Back to the quoted scam, how will they later manipulate me? Are they interested in my stuffs on moving sale, or in my money? They will probably \"\"accidentally\"\" overpay you and ask for a refund of some portion of the overpayment. In that case you will be out the entire amount that you send back to them and possibly some fees from your bank for cashing a bad check.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1884d09a6e7e4786e5ba73997559dc1b",
"text": "In the united states, they may request a check written by the bank to the other party. I have had to make large payments for home settlements, or buying a car. If the transaction was over a specified limit, they wanted a cashiers check. They wanted to make sure it wouldn't bounce. I have had companies rebate me money, and say the maximum value of the check was some small value. I guess that was to prevent people from altering the check. One thing that has happened to me is that a large check I wanted to deposit was held for a few extra days to make sure it cleared. I wouldn't have access to the funds until the deadline passed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bb927370e4c9c826f2438fd12069a89",
"text": "\"This is another version of an old scam -- \"\"let me have a check deposited in your account because I can't open one for some reason, and I'll share some of the money with you.\"\" Here the scammer is promising to \"\"start a business\"\" with you as a way to gain your confidence and trust. The first danger sign is that you only know this person from online. They are not someone you are friends with in the \"\"real\"\" world. They could be anybody. They used the name of a big company as a way to make what they're doing sound legitimate, but it's all a fraud. They could be depositing a faked Exxon check into your account, which could land YOU in huge trouble. Here's the thing -- The only way Exxon (or any other company) can deposit money in a bank under someone's name is if that person provides the account and routing numbers to an account that already exists. No company can just create an account in another person's name. That's Hollywood movie stuff, but it's not how banking works. To open an account, the bank would need identification on the account holder, so your \"\"friend\"\" already has an account if Exxon has allegedly deposited money. Further, Exxon isn't going to take back money that has already been deposited. In fact, they can't take it back. If the account is in his name, they can't do anything to the account or with the account. This is a situation you should run away from and never look back. Nothing about this story sounds right or legitimate, but this is one of the oldest scams out there since the beginning of the Internet. You would be well advised to stay VERY far away from your supposed friend, because they're anything but your friend. You are being SCAMMED. Don't be a victim. Stop communicating with this person immediately, and DON'T give them any personal information of any kind. They're crooks! I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "611f556014f621935d518b8122f06244",
"text": "The check is from your credit card company. Whose ever the money is, it is certainly not the credit card company's, and they know that. This is why they cut the check to you. You should definitely cash the check (or deposit it into your bank account). You've tried to contact the mattress store multiple times, and they aren't responding. At some point, you've got to say that you've done everything that you could to do the right thing. Now, keep in mind that at some point in the future, the mattress store may come back to you and ask for the money back. If I were you, I would not spend this money for quite some time. Put it away in a savings account (maybe add it to your emergency fund). Then if they come back in the future looking for money, you can easily write them a check. You probably also want to keep some documentation on what you've done already to try to give the money back to them, just in case for some reason they try to claim that you owe them some interest or something like that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "944f3a35fe9aee89e71d1f28ddc67cd3",
"text": "This sounds like a scam. Did they email you out of the blue to offer you this 'job', by any chance, and you'd never heard of them before? That's an incredibly large red flag in and of itself. While I don't know quite what the scam is likely to be, here's how I would suggest it might work: Other variants are possible - say using a cheque rather than PayPal, or having Person A be the scammer as well. But this being a legitimate transaction is very unlikely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0bbc0508b93a37b85d8f6b39652161d",
"text": "\"Money has to come from somewhere. It can't just appear. So if there is really an aunt at an agency, and she is sending checks, then she is writing checks from that company, and stealing from that company. If that is the case, then the person with whom you are in contact would be using you to launder money (hide its illegal origin) and when the aunt was caught, you would be also. If it is really being done between countries, then it might be more difficult for them to find you, but it is still illegal. However, it is also likely that your contact may be using a common scam, as described by another answerer, that of asking for money in return for a cashier's check. Although cashier's checks were designed to be \"\"safer\"\" than regular checks, in that they won't bounce, if it is a fake cashier's check, it was never worth anything in the first place. When the bank tries to claim the cash from the other bank, and finds it doesn't exist, or there is no record of that check, then the effect is similar to that of a personal check bouncing: the bank will want the money back. If you have already given a portion of that money to your contact, chances are, when your find this out, he will be long gone. I would not have anything further to do with this person. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8763fc2c07ef25982bf35c895dd7557",
"text": "\"There are at least a couple problems: Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account. Check bounces. They get charged a fee. You get charged a fee. You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid. The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee. Your \"\"friend\"\" may really be a crook. The check is no good. Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check. You cash it. They take the money and disappear. You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case). My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks. In general, I would view this the same as a loan. When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose. Note that an actual loan would be safer. If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50. If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal. You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police. If they don't believe you, they could charge you. A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a3d0ad2e7daf5b3cdf82e6e29bff831",
"text": "\"Yes, you should contact the bank and report it. They will eventually \"\"find\"\" that money if it's not yours. You better get it over with rather than having more surprises later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f414572f1273861b9e4d36c3ad3e02a",
"text": "As I replied to someone else who said that: I'm often having to send stuff with the check. Paperwork, a bill etc. While that would work to a person who knows me, it's usually not going to work with a business or government who needs to know why I'm sending this check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a604457a8b2691dc2a260e9b318da026",
"text": "\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "042f3105060491ad0d34cfcd506c6e69",
"text": "\"Can you get a cashier's check from your bank, made out in the charity's name, and mail it to the charity? From what I recall of the last few times I've gotten a cashier's check from the bank, it didn't have anything on it that identified me. A determined person could probably trace it back to you, but you're not really looking for strong anonymity. Another possibility would be a postal money order, but I'm not sure whether you can leave the \"\"From\"\" section blank. The money order would have a fee, but the cashier's check should be free. (It is at both my local bank and my CU.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee7d29d8d03cac74c46e680675b027e5",
"text": "These unclaimed wages were presumably yours for the taking in Year X when employer paid your other wages. Maybe this is just about uncashed paychecks. In that case, they would have appeared on your W-2 for that year. If you filed your return including that W-2 income, then this is likely not new income. This would be a constructive receipt evaluation. Income occurs when you have the right to income, whether or not you have actual receipt of it. For example, if you are paid via cash drops into a piggy bank but you wait a week (for the start of a new tax period) to withdraw your cash from the piggy bank, then the money was constructively received on the day it went into the piggy bank. This prevents taxpayers from structuring their actual receipt of income, for tax purposes or otherwise, in ways at odds with their true economic position. You can't delay taxable income that is legally yours simply by refusing to accept it when you have the right to it. The wages were income at the time your employer proffered the paycheck. You did not cash it, but I suspect that you filed it on that year's taxes. There's a slight wrinkle that when the check went stale your ability to access the money was not so straightforward. However, you still had the legal right to the money, so my perspective is that the analysis did not change when the check went stale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec456909c2d1c75c5820e40e811a5ee4",
"text": "\"The answers here are all correct. This is 100% scam, beyond any reasonable doubt. Don't fall for it. However, I felt it valuable to explain what would happen were you to fall for this. It's not all that hard to understand, but it involves understanding some of the time delays that exist in modern banking today. The most important thing to understand is that depositing a check does not actually put dollars in your account, even though it appears to. A check is not legal tender for debts public and private. It's a piece of paper known as a \"\"bill of exchange.\"\" It's an authorization for a payee (you), to request that their bank pay you the amount on the check. A transaction made with a check does not actually draw to a close until your bank and their bank communicate and cause the actual transfer of funds to take place. This process is called \"\"clearing\"\" the check. Despite living in the modern times, this process is slow. It can take 7-10 days to clear a check (especially if it is an international bank). This is not good for the banking business. You can imagine how difficult it would be to tell a poor client, who is living paycheck to paycheck, that he can't have his pay until the check clears a week later. Banks have an interest in hiding this annoying feature of the modern banking system, so they do. When you deposit a check, the bank will typically advance you the money (an interest free loan, in effect) while the check \"\"floats\"\" (i.e. until it clears). This creates the illusion that the money is actually in your account for most intents and purposes. (presumably a bank would distinguish between the floating check and a cleared check if you tried to close out your account, but otherwise it looks and feels like the money is in your hands). Of course, if the check is dishonored (because the payer had insufficient funds, or the account simply did not exist), your bank will not get the money. At this moment, they will cancel any advances you received and notify you that the check bounced. Again, this happens 7-10 days later. The general pattern of this scam is that they will pay you by a method which clears slowly, like a check. They will then ask you to withdraw the money using a faster clearing method (like a wire transfer or withdrawing the cash). Typically they will be encouraging you to move quickly (they are on a timetable... when their check bounces, the game is up!) At this time, it will appear as though the account has a positive balance, but in fact it has a negative balance plus an advance on the check. This looks great until 7-10 days later, when the check bounces. At that time, the bank will cancel the advance, and reality will set in. You will now have an open bank account, legally opened by you in your own name, which is deeply in debt. Meanwhile, the scammer walks away with all the money that you sent them (which cleared quickly). There are many variants which can hide the details. Some can play games with check kiting to try to make your first check clear (then try to rope you in for a more painful hit). Some will change the instruments they use (checks are the easy ones, so they're simply most common). Don't try to think \"\"maybe this one is legit.\"\" These scammers literally make a living off of making shady transactions look legit. Things I would recommend looking out for:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2610b3e155af92e861d3f1b7d3805fef
|
How does one value Facebook stock as a potential investment?
|
[
{
"docid": "f842bd669390984b235833aa573c6614",
"text": "In the long term, a P/E of 15-25 is the more 'normal' range. With a 90 P/E, Facebook has to quadruple its earnings to get to normal. It this possible? Yes. Likely? I don't know. I am not a stock analyst, but I love numbers and try to get to logical conclusions. I've seen data that worldwide advertising is about $400B, and US about $100B. If Facebook's profit runs 25% or so and I want a P/E of 20, it needs profit of $5B on sales of $20B (to reconcile its current $100B market cap). No matter what FB growth in sales is, the advertising spent worldwide will not rise or fall by much more than the economy. So with a focus on ads, they would need about 5% of the world market to grow into a comfortable P/E. Flipping this around, if all advertising were 25% profit (a crazy assumption), there are $100B in profit to be had world wide each year, and the value of the companies might total $2T in aggregate. The above is a rambling sharing of the reasonable bounds one might expect in analyzing a stock. It can be used for any otherwise finite market, such as soft drinks. There are only so many people on the planet, and in aggregate, the total soft drink consumption can't exceed, say 6 billion gallons per day. The pie may grow a bit, but it's considered fixed as an order of magnitude. Edit - for what it's worth, as of 8/3/12, the price has dropped significantly, currently $20, and the P/E is showing as 70X. I'm not making any predictions, but the stock needs a combined higher earnings or lower valuation to still approach 'normal.'",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2898cbcad650524273c571ea685cf014",
"text": "\"You could try this experiment: pay for an Ad/banner on Facebook for 1 month. The Ad/banner should link to your ecommerce site. Then see if the Ad/banner does or does not convert into ecommerce orders (\"\"converting\"\" means that people coming to your eccomerce site from Facebook after having clicked on your Ad/banner really buy something on your site). If it does convert, you will go on paying for Ads/banners and other people will do the same for their sites, so FB might make cash in next years. But if it does NOT convert you and everybody else will soon discover and stop paying for Ads/banners, thus it will be hard for Facebook to make money with Advertising, thus Facebook might be just a big bubble (unless they find other ways of making money). I did the experiment I suggested above and the conversion rate was an absoulte ZERO!!! (Instead Google Adwords converted well for the same site). So IMHO I would stay away from FB. But remember that stock market is emotional (at least on short periods of time), so it might be that even if FB wil never become a cash cow, for the 1st few months people (expecially small investors tempeted by the brand) might go crazy for the stocks and buy buy buy, making the price go up up up. EDIT in reply to some comments below arguing that my answer was boiled down to one single experiment: General Motors said Tuesday that it will stop paid advertising on Facebook...the social media paid ads simply weren't delivering the hoped-for buyers... (CNN May/15/2012) A donkey can not fly either when it's me (with a single experiment) trying to make it fly or the entire GM workforce.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f63cceb091fed668aefa3680076af07f",
"text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c292006ff02210387d9df2e28d2437bb",
"text": "\"The amount of hype and uneducated investors/speculators driving its prices up. Just by that I would say its prices are inflated. Bear in mind that Facebook don't sell anything tangible. They can go down as fast as they went up. Most of their income is ad based and single-product oriented, and as such highly dependent on usage and trends (remember MySpace?). Having said that, all the other \"\"classic\"\" valuation techniques are still valid and you should utilize them.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fe61fe6dda1ebeb516ecc9824dd2d930",
"text": "Even people who did think it was a good didn't really get screwed. If you are an investor who thinks Facebook is a good buy then fucking hold it. The company hasn't even released its first quarter of earnings yet. If the people who bought Facebook are right about it it will be worth it in five years. The fact is we cannot say whether or not that is going to happen right now. The only people who really got screwed are the ones who wanted to flip it. If you wanted to flip it you lost a lot of money, but the retail investors who figured that Facebook long-term was worth the money, didn't get screwed. They might be wrong and might lose all their money five years from now, but they didn't get screwed yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcf6b3771ad03916adfe08e2982cd346",
"text": "\"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0656add052a98a8db4a16389833068c",
"text": "Source, see if you have access to it Convertible notes are often used by angel investors who wish to fund businesses without establishing an explicit valuation of the company in which they are investing. When an investor purchases equity in a startup, the purchase price of the equity implies a company valuation. For example, if an investor purchases a 10 per cent ownership stake in a company, and pay $1m for that stake, this implies that the company is worth $10m. Some early stage investors may wish to avoid placing a value on the company in this way, because this in turn will affect the terms under which later-stage investors will invest in the company. Convertible notes are structured as loans at the time the investment is made. The outstanding balance of the loan is automatically converted to equity when a later equity investor appears, under terms that are governed by the terms set by the later-stage equity investor. An equity investor is someone who purchases equity in a company. Example:- Suppose an angel investor invests $100,000 using a convertible note. Later, an equity investor invests $1m and receives 10% of the company's shares. In the simplest possible case, the initial angel investor's convertible note would convert to 1/10th of the equity investor's claim. Depending on the exact structure of the convertible note, however, the angel investor may also receive extra shares to compensate them for the additional risk associated with being an earlier investor The worst-case scenario would be if the issuing company initially performed well, meaning that the debt would be converted into shares, and subsequently went bankrupt. The converted shares would become worthless, but the holder of the note would no longer have any recourse. Will twitter have to sell their offices and liquidate staff to close this debt? This depends on the seniority(priority) of the debt. Debt is serviced according to seniority. The higher seniority debts will be paid off first and then only the lower seniority debts be serviced. This will all be in the agreements when you enter into a transaction. When you say liquidate staff you mean sell off their assets and not sell their staff into slavery.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5332ab4fcf9969669a3adebdc5e92194",
"text": "\"Bloomberg suggests that two Fidelity funds hold preferred shares of Snapchat Inc.. Preferred shares hold more in common with bonds than with ordinary stock as they pay a fixed dividend, have lower liquidity, and don't have voting rights. Because of this lower liquidity they are not usually offered for sale on the market. Whether these funds are allowed to hold such illiquid assets is more a question for their strategy document than the law; it is completely legal for a company to hold a non-marketable interest in another, even if the company is privately held as Snapchat is. The strategy documents governing what the fund is permitted to hold, however, may restrict ownership either banning non-market holdings or restricting the percentage of assets held in illiquid instruments. Since IPO is very costly, funds like these who look to invest in new companies who have not been through IPO yet are a very good way of taking a diversified position in start-ups. Since they look to invest directly rather than through the market they are an attractive, low cost way for start-ups to generate funds to grow. The fund deals directly with the owners of the company to buy its shares. The markdown of the stock value reflects the accounting principle of marking to market (MTM) financial assets that do not have a trade price so as to reflect their fair value. This markdown implies that Fidelity believe that the total NPV of the company's net assets is lower than they had previously calculated. This probably reflects a lack of revenue streams coming into the business in the case of Snapchat. edit: by the way, since there is no market for start-up \"\"stocks\"\" pre-IPO my heart sinks a little every time I read the title of this question. I'm going to be sad all day now :(.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5ad9cc5c56afd2f812810cd5f15af08",
"text": "One of the problems is that its being marketed at a growth stock. When Facebook has 900 million users, there isn't exactly a lot of growth left. The only thing they can do is try to squeeze more money out of their existing user base, which won't be easy to do for people not generally interested in clicking ads or paying for things. Facebook as a company will continue to do well for a long long time. It's good they aren't really dependent on the money their stock brings them. I wouldn't be surprised to see the stock settle around $18-$22ish, even though it probably should technically settle in the $13-15 range.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8b88198916d748a47f9a1efedca2ada",
"text": "Yeah from what I've read, Facebook is pilling up the profits so they could be in very good position to do the RA as well. Its crazy if you think about the Google one.. At least $100m more went to the shareholders due to the different fee structure. Why wouldn't you do that if you had the option?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee8a6f97c97ef7941969a41f0081da28",
"text": "\"What littleadv said is correct. His worth is based on the presumed worth of the total company value (which is much greater than all investment dollars combined because of valuation growth)*. In other words, his \"\"worth\"\" is based on the potential return for his share of ownership at a rate based on the latest valuation of the company. He is worth $17.5 billion today, but the total funding for Facebook is only $2.4 billion? I don't understand this. In private companies, valuations typically come from either speculation/analysts or from investments. Investment valuations are the better gauge, because actual money traded hands for a percentage ownership. However, just as with public companies on the stock market, there are (at least) two caveats. Just because someone else sold their shares at a given rate, doesn't mean that rate... In both cases, it's possible the value may be much lower or much higher. Some high-value purchases surprise for how high they are, such as Microsoft's acquisition of Skype for $8.5 billion. The formula for one owner's \"\"worth\"\" based on a given acquisition is: Valuation = Acquisition amount / Acquisition percent Worth = Owner's percent × Valuation According to Wikipedia Zuckerberg owns 24%. In January, Goldman Sach's invested $500 million at a $50 billion valuation. That is the latest investment and puts Zuckerberg's worth at $12 billion. However, some speculation places a Facebook IPO at a much higher valuation, such as as $100 billion. I don't know what your reference is for $17 billion, but it puts their valuation at $70.8 billion, between the January Goldman valuation and current IPO speculation. * For instance, Eduardo Saverin originally invested $10,000, which, at his estimated 5% ownership, would now be worth $3-5 billion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "443ed933186e8032726e0e1c7ace6636",
"text": "\"> Wall St ripped off retail investors pretty good \"\"Ripped off\"\" ? How about \"\"retail investors did not sufficiently research and think about the company, invested poorly\"\" Seriously, a 20 minute thought experiment pre-IPO of \"\"is Facebook worth $100bn, and does it have growth prospects?\"\" ought to immediately discount the stock. The smart money was always on \"\"short it as soon as you can\"\" If you're making investment decisions like \"\"Hey, I know what that company is. I use facebook!\"\" you deserve to lose money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "effdb8dcc335751c858d9ba889630d68",
"text": "FB's IPO was at exactly the right price. The intent all along was to allow insiders to sell to retail bagholders, hence the large support by JPM to hold the line at $38.0000000, the absolutely legendary hype, and the unusual step of allowing retail in on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "575ea962df2310a80f53c4f8f5e81c12",
"text": "DCF only works with stable cash flows, a new tech company that does not have stable cash flows or even cash flows that are easy to ACCURATELY forecast is a poor candidate for DCF. Comparables don't really work well in this space as the closest thing they would have is skype and other messager products. The honest and true value of the acquisition is the value captured/saved by facebook from the decrease in competition and as facebook is in the advertising business, this gives them a way to stay in the lives of their users. Facebook could argue, the core rationale for the acquisition was to stay current with their users keeping their core product attractive to their customers (advertisers).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c214d560ed54ea4495c8526b2894adf6",
"text": "The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af2e38ba5d717fc1e30e479aeb76faec",
"text": "There are two very large negative factors that affect Yahoo's valuation. The first is that their search business is in decline and continues to lose ground to Google and even Bing. There's no sign that they have any plan or product in the works to offset this decline, so there's tremendous uncertainty about the company's forward-looking revenues. The second is that the company can't seem to decide what to do with its stake in Alibaba, clearly the company's most valuable asset. It they sell it, the question then becomes what they plan to do with the proceeds. Will they do share buybacks or offer a special dividend to reward investors? Will they use some or all of the money to make strategic acquisitions that are revenue-enhancing? Will they use it to develop new products/services? Keep in mind one other thing here, too. There's a world of difference between what something is valued at and what someone's willing to actually pay for it. A patent portfolio is great and perhaps holds good value, assuming the buyer can find a way to monetize it. How exactly was the valuation of the patents arrived at, and are they worthwhile enough for someone to pay anywhere close to that valuation? There's more to this than meets the eye by using a first-blush look at asset valuation, and that's where the professionals come in. My bet is that they have it right and there's something the rest of the market doesn't see or understand about it, hence questions like yours. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4319ebd4f62eadb63d61aa3c1f162649",
"text": "The Facebook IPO wasn't a debacle. Facebook got maximum value for their shares. That's precisely what you want at IPO. If you sell your stock initially for $25, and next week it's at $35, you've left a hell of a lot of money on the table.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ad8c31cf38ded9ae11e02d78b881164",
"text": "\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffe077ce7109494b884f009cd2cac25f",
"text": "\"People treat an emergency fund as some kind of ace-in-the-hole when it comes to financial difficulty, but it is only one of many sources of money that you can utilize. What is an emergency? First, you have to define what an emergency is. Is it a lost job? Is it an unplanned event (pregnancy, perhaps)? Is it a medical emergency? Is it the death of you or your spouse? Also, what does it mean to be unplanned? Is being so unhappy with your job that you give a 2-week notice an emergency? Is one month of planning an emergency? Two? Only you can answer these questions for yourself, but they significantly shape your financial strategy. Planning is highly dependent on your cashflow, and, for some people, it may take them a year to build enough savings to enable them to take 3 months off work. For others, they may be able to change their spending to build up enough for 3 months in 1 month. Also, you have to consider the length of the emergency. Job-loss is rarely permanent, but it's rarely short as well. The current average is 30.7 weeks: that's 7 months! Money in an Emergency There are six main places that people get money during a financial emergency: A good emergency strategy takes all six of these into account. Some emergencies may lean more on one source than the other. However, some of these are correlated. For example, in 2008, three things happened: the stock market crashed, unsecured debt dried up, and people faced financial emergency (lost jobs, cut wages). If you were dependent on a stock portfolio and/or a line of credit, you'd be up a creek, because the value of your investments suddenly decreased, and you can't really tap your now significantly limited line of credit. However, if you had a one or more of cash savings, unemployment income, and unemployment insurance, you would probably have been OK. Budgeting for an emergency When you say \"\"financial emergency\"\", most people think job loss. However, the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical debt. Depending on your insurance situation, this could be a serious risk, or it may not be. People say you should have 3x-6x of your monthly income in savings because it's an easy, back-of-the-envelope way to handle most financial emergency risk, but it's not necessarily the most prudent strategy for you. To properly budget for an emergency, you need to fully take into account what emergencies you are likely to face, and what sources of financing you would have access to given the likely factors that led to that emergency. Generally, having a savings account with some amount of liquid cash is an important part of a risk-mitigation strategy. But it's not a panacea for every kind of emergency.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
af920854fcb3276da86ccd27c4974ff5
|
Why don't more people run up their credit cards and skip the country?
|
[
{
"docid": "0d4aa993cd8b7d0073c74d02c62e2577",
"text": "It's harder than you think. Once card companies start seeing your debt to credit line ratios climb, they will slash your credit lines quickly. Also, cash credit lines are always much smaller, so in reality, such a scheme would require you to buy goods that can be converted to cash, which dilutes your gains and makes it more likely that you're going to get detected and busted. Think of the other problems. Where do you store your ill-gotten gains? How do you get the money out of the country? How will your actions affect your family and friends? Also, most people are basically good people -- the prospect of defrauding $100k, leaving family and friends behind and living some anonymous life in a third world country isn't an appealing one. If you are criminally inclined, building up a great credit history is not very practical -- most criminals are by nature reactive and want quick results.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46ac2f0aa2eaf6f949b4a2039ebc6484",
"text": "Because most people aren't willing to sacrifice their ability to live in the US for 100k. Remember that you can't pull this off multiple times easily. So as a one and done kind of deal, 100k isn't a great trade for the right to live in tthe US or whatever country you have roots in, particularly once you factor in:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1303b3ef48e60c5cbb8b049b93abd32",
"text": "Even if you could get it with no major hassle, $100,000 is just not that much money. In a cheap third world country, as an expat you're looking at spending about $800-$2000/month, plus unexpected expenses. Locals live on less, but very few of us would be happy with the lifestyle of a Honduran or Thai farmer. Your 100k will last 4-10 years. This is hardly a great deal considering you're cutting off ties back home and almost becoming a fugitive. With USD going down the drain (e.g. in Thailand it went down 25% in 3 years), this period would probably be even shorter. Of course, you could work in the new country, but if you do then you don't need 100k to start with. The initial amount may improve your security, but from that standpoint being able to go back and work in your home country is worth more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db3fe131c638bf9737403e717c635377",
"text": "I take it the premise of the question is that we're assuming the person isn't worried about the morals. He's a criminal out for a quick buck. And I guess we're assuming that wherever you go, they wouldn't arrest you and extradite you back to the U.S. As others have noted, you can't just walk into a bank the day you graduate high school or get out of prison or whatever and get a credit line of $100,000. You have to build up to that with an income and a pattern of responsible behavior over a period of many years. I don't have the statistics handy but I'd guess most people never reach a credit limit on credit cards of $100,000. Maybe many people could get that on a home equity line of credit, but again, you'd have to build up that equity in your house first, and that would take many years. Then, while $100,000 sounds like a lot of money, how long could you really live on that? Even in a country with low cost of living, it's not like you could live in luxury for the rest of your life. If you can get that kind of credit limit, you probably are used to living on a healthy income. Sure, you could get a similar lifestyle for less in some other countries, but not for THAT much less. If you know a place where for $10,000 a year you can live a life that would cost $100,000 per year in the U.S., I'd like to know about it. Even living a relatively frugal life, I doubt the money would last more than 4 or 5 years. And then what are you going to do? If you come back to the U.S. you'd presumably be promptly arrested. You could get a job in your new country, but you could have done that without first stealing $100,000. Frankly, if you're the sort of person who can get a $100,000 credit limit, you probably can live a lot better in the U.S. by continuing to work and play by the rules than you could by stealing $100,000 and fleeing to Haiti or Eritrea. You might say, okay, $100,000 isn't really enough. What if I could get a $1 million credit limit? But if you have the income and credit rating to get a $1 million credit limit, you probably are making at least several hundred thousand per year, probably a million or more, and again, you're better off to continue to play by the rules. The only way that I see that a scam like this would really work is if you could get a credit limit way out of proportion to any income you could earn legitimately. Like somehow if you could convince the bank to give you a credit limit of $1 million even though you only make $15,000 a year. But that would be a scam in itself. That's why I think the only time you do hear of people trying something like this is when they USED to make a lot of money but have lost it. Like someone has a multi-million dollar business that goes broke, he now has nothing, so before the bank figures it out he maxes out all his credit and runs off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea4f6d41989081ee98b66fcdd1343613",
"text": "Quality of life, success and happiness are three factors that are self define by each individual. Most of the time all three factors go hand by hand with your ability to generate wealth and save. Actually, a recent study showed that there were more happy families with savings than with expensive products (car, jewelry and others). These 3 factors, will be very difficult to maintain after someone commit such action. First, because you will fear every interaction with the origin of the money. Second, because every individual has a notion of wrong doing. Third, for the reasons that Jaydles express. Also, most cards, will call you and stop the cards ability to give money, if they see an abusive pattern. Ether, skipping your country has some adverse psychological impact in the family and individual that most of the time 100K is not enough to motivate such change. Thanks for reading. Geo",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0383a3d4efc2433af856ac82cdaa3e04",
"text": "\"Do you guys know any options that are accessible to any global citizen? Prepaid and stored value cards are anonymous. For an arbitrary reason, the really anonymous ones only allow you to load $500 but there is no regulation that dictates this amount. In the USA, these cards are exempt from being declared at border crossings. Not because they look like credit cards, but because they are exempt by the US Treasury and Customs. The cons is that there are generally fees to use them. US DOJ has done research showing that some groups take advantage of the exemption moving upwards of $50,000 a day between borders, but Congress is fine with this exemption and the burden is always on the government to determine \"\"illicit origin\"\". Stigmatizing how money is moved is only a 30 year old phenomenon, but many free nations do not really have capital controls, they only care that you pay taxes and that the integrity of their stock markets are upheld. Aside from that there are no qualms about anonymity, except from your neighbors but they dont matter for a global citizen. In theory, the UK should have more flexibility in anonymity options, such as stored value cards with higher limits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31fa6913dcce1b5d529f2d45eb778025",
"text": "What sort of amount are we talking about here, and what countries are you travelling to? As long as it's not cash, most countries will neither know or care how much money is in your bank account or on your credit card limit, and can't even check if they wanted to. Even if they can, there are very few countries where they would check without already suspecting you of a crime. I think you're worrying over nothing. Even if it's cash, most countries have no border control anyway, and those who do (UK, Ireland) allow up to £10,000 or so cash without even having to declare it... Just open a second bank account and don't take the card (or cut the card up). Use online banking to transfer money in smaller chunks to your main account. Alternately (or additionally) take a credit card or two with a smaller limit (enough to make sure you're comfortably able to deal with one month plus emergency money). Then set up your regular bank account to pay this credit card off in full every month. If I was really concerned, I'd open a second bank account and add a sensible amount of money to it (enough to cover costs of my stay and avoid questions about whether I can afford my stay, but not so much it would raise question). Then I'd open two credit cards with a limit of perhaps $1000-2000: one covers the costs of living wherever I'm going, the other is for emergencies or if I misjudge and go over my amount per month. Set up your bank to pay these off each month, and you're sorted Honestly, I think you're worrying over nothing. People travel inside Europe every day with millions in the bank and raise no questions. You're legally allowed to have money!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2ecf361875bddae8e68e43c43660b57",
"text": "\"Because the value of distressed assets is close to what they are selling for. When you lend money, you know there is a risk of default. You gamble on that risk, and you take the responsibility if you lose because the person taking the money can't pay. People who buy distressed debt on the idea that they can make more money off of it are only able to do that in two ways: not giving a shit what the impacts of wringing more money out create, figuring out a legal way to make someone else pay for it through ripple blackmail effects (other people also are impacted when a country can't function.) If you back Klarman, you may say the point is you are \"\"teaching\"\" Puerto Rico and everyone else that they shouldn't take on debt they can't afford. But when has that ever worked? The pensioners who are bankrupt are the ones actually getting the pain of the lesson. Another lesson could be to investors not to lend to people who can't pay them back. The people lending the money are the ones who now don't have it because they made a bad choice. Seth Klarman could also learn a lesson about taking on distressed debt being a non-lucrative pastime. Or we can all learn a lesson that taking on distressed debt is very lucrative. A big change America implemented was getting rid of debtor's prisons. This looks a lot like getting excited about debtor's prison to me. EDIT: I should note I am thinking of the Algerian version of making a ton of money off of distressed national debt. As opposed to making a bit more money off of distressed debt because you were willing to let the collapse figure itself out. Though I'm not so sure about that either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec09dc872a11a9632bf93028640f0f72",
"text": "While the US hosts most of the world's innovative startups, its own financial and banking systems are very slow to change. The infrastructure exists, however the ACH transfers are not wide-spread between individuals. Banks much prefer the option of bill-pay (i.e.: as you said, mailing a check, something in other countries people wouldn't even think of), than letting you do it yourself. Why? Because they can. There's no real competition over consumers, and the consumers themselves are not educated or sophisticated. Thus, the banks are comfortable with the lack of innovation - since as long as they are all lacking innovation - consumers won't demand it because they won't even know things are possible. And it is definitely cheaper for the banks not to innovate and keep your money for a week while the bill-pay check is en route, than try and develop new things. In other countries, the regulator would step up and force banks to develop new infrastructure and widen the options, but in the US regulation is considered a bad thing, and people are easily swayed, being uneducated and uninformed, by the corporations to support politicians who act against their (people's) best interest in protecting the corporations and reducing and limiting the regulators even further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d327f6f54ca772c49710eccf4c905d53",
"text": "They are not as good of an option when compared to a card you open chosen based on features and rates. Get a card with a lower rate that can be used anywhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "828c11ab1a9dd388af11264f4d0f4c04",
"text": "The US is one of the only countries which taxes its citizens on global income. You're ignoring the high fixed costs of compliance with the US tax code, both for individuals and institutions. Compliance is so big an issue that foreign banks are turning away US customers rather than having to comply with FATCA, leaving people unable to open a bank account. Also, renunciations of citizenship are up something like 400%, and they aren't all billionaires.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29e5364098ed267e8d58e3f0f938a9e2",
"text": "People with credit cards tend to have better credit than those who only have debit cards. People with better credit tend to not abuse such things as car rentals. It costs money for any company to run your credit. It doesn't cost a rental company any outflow of money to reject debit cards. So the possession of a credit card becomes a stand-in for running your credit before you rent a car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcbf762f2bd16440bc83a5320a6dfc65",
"text": "Lots of places in the US do it. Although the way that they usually phrase it is 'prices reflect a x.x% discount for cash' since most of the credit card companies have an agreement that says you cannot charge a surcharge if someone is using a credit card. So they get around it by giving a discount for cash. effect is the same, but it skirts the letter of the agreement",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7832dedd1fee46484365b4dc17bf4aa4",
"text": "There are several reasons why credit cards are popular in the US: On the other hand, debit cards do not have any of these going for them. A debit card doesn't make much money for the bank unless you overdraw or something, so banks don't have incentive to push you to use them as much. As a result they don't offer rewards other benefits. Some people say the ability to spend more than you have is a downside of a credit card. But it's really an upside. The behavior of doing that when it isn't needed is bad, but that's not the card's fault, it's the users'. You can get a credit card with a very small limit if this is an issue for you. The question I find interesting is why debit cards are more popular in your home country. I can't think of any advantage they offer besides free cash back. But most people in the US don't use cash much either. I have to think in your home country the banks have a different revenue model or perhaps your country isn't as eager to offer tons of easy credit to everyone as the US is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb85de0b7686d07f00729fa1f49c9002",
"text": "The U.S. bankruptcy laws no longer make it simple to discharge credit card debt, so you can't simply run up a massive tab on credit cards and then just walk away from them anymore. That used to be the case, but that particular loophole no longer exists the way it once did. Further, you could face fraud charges if it can be proven you acted deliberately with the intent to commit fraud. Finally, you won't be able to rack up a ton of new cards as quickly as you might think, so your ability to amass enough to make your plan worth the risk is not as great as you seem to believe. As a closing note, don't do it. All you do is make it more expensive for the rest of us to carry credit cards. After all, the banks aren't going to eat the losses. They'll just pass them along in the form of higher fees and rates to the rest of us.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41be16162f9c8fab361ef64f24f0ab6f",
"text": "That might happen if this incident leads to a deflationary demand for consumer credit instruments in the US to approaching Third World penetration levels. Ironic, as the consumer credit industry is spending gigadollars trying to spark the same consumer credit frenzy in those countries. The demographics are already primed for turning away from consumer credit, as the Millennials are already increasingly predisposed against credit as they age.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbd62be03bb002ae46dc41aa9b2276eb",
"text": "I've been hearing storied from Germans that this is happening in Germany, too, but at the bank level. All anecdotal, people I've met telling me their personal stories, but they follow the same pattern. Go to the bank, try to take out a few grand for a vacation or large purchase, bank tells them they can't have that much and that they just have to do with less, even if the account balance covers the withdrawal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f55e29b5b419a1fa47ae9f6fc7d40bd7",
"text": "Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68ca8ce246d0e966543105f3cfd308d4",
"text": "Yes, it is unreasonable and unsustainable. We all want returns in excess of 15% but even the best and richest investors do not sustain those kinds of returns. You should not invest more than a fraction of your net worth in individual stocks in any case. You should diversify using index funds or ETFs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eabca0d4093b0bf323221b0f00088f39
|
When one pays Quarterly Estimated Self Employment Taxes, exactly what are they paying?
|
[
{
"docid": "fd07b9332ec0af4e8cddc1f4c558f5dc",
"text": "\"From the IRS page on Estimated Taxes (emphasis added): Taxes must be paid as you earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. If the amount of income tax withheld from your salary or pension is not enough, or if you receive income such as interest, dividends, alimony, self-employment income, capital gains, prizes and awards, you may have to make estimated tax payments. If you are in business for yourself, you generally need to make estimated tax payments. Estimated tax is used to pay not only income tax, but other taxes such as self-employment tax and alternative minimum tax. I think that is crystal clear that you're paying income tax as well as self-employment tax. To expand a bit, you seem to be confusing self-employment tax and estimated tax, which are not only two different things, but two different kinds of things. One is a tax, and the other is just a means of paying your taxes. \"\"Self-employment tax\"\" refers to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that you must pay on your self-employment income. This is an actual tax that you owe. If you receive a W-2, half of it is \"\"invisibly\"\" paid by your employer, and half of it is paid by you in the form of visible deductions on your pay stub. If you're self-employed, you have to pay all of it explicitly. \"\"Estimated tax\"\" does not refer to any actual tax levied on anyone. A more pedantically correct phrasing would be \"\"estimated tax payment\"\". Estimated taxes are just payments that you make to the IRS to pay tax you expect to owe. Whether you have to make such payments depends on how much tax you owe and whether you've paid it by other means. You may need to pay estimated tax even if you're not self-employed, although this would be unusual. (It could happen, for instance, if you realized large capital gains over the year.) You also may be self-employed but not need to pay estimated tax (if, for instance, you also have a W-2 job and you reduce your withholding allowances to have extra tax withheld). That said, if you earn significant income from self-employment, you'll likely have to make estimated tax payments. These are prepayments of the income tax and Social Security/Medicare taxes you accrue based on your self-employment income. As Pete B. mentioned in his answer, a possible reason that your estiamtes are low is because some taxes have already been withheld from the paychecks you received so far during the year (while you were an employee). These represent tax payments you've already made; you don't need to pay that money a second time, but you may need to make estimated tax payments for your income going forward.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83b0ba3e5841488f99a591f1984b9dc7",
"text": "\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cba1425be952a8c31d88fddb317ac8f0",
"text": "I've had zero taxable income for the past 2 years and yet the calculations say I owe the government $250 for each year for the Self Employment tax. How can they charge a non-zero tax on my income when my taxable income is zero? That is theft. That demands reform.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e14cb4c06d785d9ab927ff0914196dcc",
"text": "This is wrong. It should be or Now, to get back to self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is weird. It's a business tax. From the IRS perspective, any self-employed person is a business. So, take your income X and divide by 1.0765 (6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare). This gives your personal income. Now, to calculate the tax that you have to pay, multiply that by .153 (since you have to pay both the worker and employer shares of the tax). So new calculation or they actually let you do which is better for you (smaller). And your other calculations change apace. And like I said, you can simplify Q1se to and your payment would be Now, to get to the second quarter. Like I said, I'd calculate the income through the second quarter. So recalculate A based on your new numbers and use that to calculate Q2i. or Note that this includes income from both the first and second quarters. We'll reduce to just the second quarter later. This also has you paying for all of June even though you may not have been paid when you make the withholding payment. That's what they want you to do. But we aren't done yet. Your actual payment should be or Because Q2ft and Q2se are what you owe for the year so far. Q1ft + Q1se is what you've already paid. So you subtract those from what you need to pay in the second quarter. In future quarters, this would be All that said, don't stress about it. As a practical matter, so long as you don't owe $1000 or more when you file your actual tax return, they aren't going to care. So just make sure that your total payments match by the payment you make January 15th. I'm not going to try to calculate for the state. For one thing, I don't know if your state uses Q1i or Q1pi as its base. Different states may have different rules on that. If you can't figure it out, just use Q1i, as that's the bigger one. Fix it when you file your annual return. The difference in withholding is going to be relatively small anyway, less than 1% of your income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67ea53fdb59599c1da7dc8de5c972c19",
"text": "Do you have a regular job, where you work for somebody else and they pay you a salary? If so, they should be deducting estimated taxes from your paychecks and sending them in to the government. How much they deduct depends on your salary and what you put down on your W-4. Assuming you filled that out accurately, they will withhold an amount that should closely match the taxes you would owe if you took the standard deduction, have no income besides this job, and no unusual deductions. If that's the case, come next April 15 you will probably get a small refund. If you own a small business or are an independent contractor, then you have to estimate the taxes you will owe and make quarterly payments. If you're worried that the amount they're withholding doesn't sound right, then as GradeEhBacon says, get a copy of last year's tax forms (or this year's if they're out by now) -- paper or electronic -- fill them out by estimating what your total income will be for the year, etc, and see what the tax comes out to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12145f28caf8629f91f0f822a8de3b2c",
"text": "Don't overthink it. As an employee, whether of your own corporation or of someone else, you get a salary and there are deductions taken out. As the owner of a business you get (hopefully) business profits as well. And, in general, you often have other sources of income from investments, etc. Your estimated tax payments are based on the difference between what was withheld from your salary and what you will owe, based on salary, business income, and other sources. So, in essence, you just add up all the income you expect, estimate what the tax bill will be, and subtract what's been withheld. That's your estimated tax payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfb3bb9c58961c4994b6fef8d7252358",
"text": "I heard that a C-Corp being a one person shop (no other employees but the owner) can pay for the full amount 100% of personal rent if the residence is being used as a home office. Sure. Especially if you don't mind being audited. Technically, it doesn't matter how the money gets where it goes as long as the income tax filings accurately describe the tax situation. But the IRS hates it when you make personal expenses from a business account, even if you've paid the required personal income tax (because their computers simply aren't smart enough to keep up with that level of chaos). Also, on a non-tax level, commingling of business and personal funds can reduce the effectiveness of your company's liability protection and you could more easily become personally liable if the company goes bankrupt. From what I understand the 30% would be the expense, and the 70% profit distribution. I recommend you just pay yourself and pay the rent from your personal account and claim the allowed deductions properly like everyone else. Why & when it would make sense to do this? Are there any tax benefits? Never, because, no. You would still have to pay personal income tax on your 70% share of the rent (the 30% you may be able to get deductions for but the rules are quite complicated and you should never just estimate). The only way to get money out of a corporation without paying personal income tax is by having a qualified dividend. That's quite complicated - your accounting has to be clear that the money being issued as a qualified dividend came from an economic profit, not from a paper profit resulting from the fact that you worked hard without paying yourself market value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "447c3f654c405b11900b5814b150328a",
"text": "Alright, team! I found answers to part 1) and part 2) that I've quote below, but still need help with 3). The facts in the article below seem to point to the ability for the LLC to contribute profit sharing of up to 25% of the wages it paid SE tax on. What part of the SE tax is that? I assume the spirit of the law is to only allow the 25% on the taxable portion of the income, but given that I would have crossed the SS portion of SE tax, I am not 100%. (From http://www.sensefinancial.com/services/solo401k/solo-401k-contribution/) Sole Proprietorship Employee Deferral The owner of a sole proprietorship who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A sole proprietorship may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (1) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (2) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k) plan. A business entity’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline. Single Member LLC Employee Deferral The owner of a single member LLC who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A single member LLC business may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (i) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (ii) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k). A single member LLC’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7885cbddc73d702df6c3ddfae17ec64",
"text": "\"See Publication 505, specifically the section on \"\"Annualized Income Installment Method\"\", which says: If you do not receive your income evenly throughout the year (for example, your income from a repair shop you operate is much larger in the summer than it is during the rest of the year), your required estimated tax payment for one or more periods may be less than the amount figured using the regular installment method. The publication includes a worksheet and explanation of how to calculate the estimated tax due for each period when you have unequal income. If you had no freelance income during a period, you shouldn't owe any estimated tax for that period. However, the process for calculating the estimated tax using this method is a good bit more complex and confusing than using the \"\"short\"\" method (in which you just estimate how much tax you will owe for the year and divide it into four equal pieces). Therefore, in future years you might want to still use the equal-payments method if you can swing it. (It's too late for this year since you missed the April deadline for the first payment.) If you can estimate the total amount of freelance income you'll receive (even though you might not be able to estimate when you'll receive it), you can probably still use the simpler method. If you really have no idea how much money you'll make over the year, you could either use the more complex computation, or you could use a very high estimate to ensure you pay enough tax, and you'll get a refund if you pay too much.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce251ce6d31823ac7124eae816392f7c",
"text": "Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04b3f704a8ebfdd049ca8774d1e03bd8",
"text": "If you have a one-time event, you are allowed to make a single estimated payment for that quarter on Form 1040-ES. People seem to fear that if they make one such payment they will need to do it forevermore, and that is not true. The IRS instructions do kind of read that way, but that's because most people who make estimated payment do so because of some repeating circumstance like being self-employed. In addition, you may qualify for one or more waivers on a potential underpayment penalty when you file your Form 1040 even if you don't make an estimated payment, and you may reduce or eliminate any penalty by annualizing your income - which is to say breaking it down by quarter rather than the full year. Check on the instructions for Form 2210 for more detail, including Schedule AI for annualizing income. This is some work, but it might be worthwhile depending on your situation. https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i2210/ch02.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5923619c7a3b18fc6934a3f2d6b95dc8",
"text": "You will not necessarily incur a penalty. You can potentially use the Annualized Income Installment method, which allows you to compute the tax due for each quarter based on income actually earned up to that point in the year. See Publication 505, in particular Worksheet 2-9. Form 2210 is also relevant as that is the form you will use when actually calculating whether you owe a penalty after the year is over. On my reading of Form 2210, if you had literally zero income during the first quarter, you won't be expected to make an estimated tax payment for that quarter (as long as you properly follow the Annualized Income Installment method for future quarters). However, you should go through the calculations yourself to see what the situation is with your actual numbers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5ce258c252eb127e48a7a588eb6ee11",
"text": "You must pay your taxes at the quarterly intervals. For most people the withholding done by their employer satisfies this requirement. However, if your income does not have any withholding (or sufficient), then you must file quarterly estimated tax payments. Note that if you have a second job that does withhold, then you can adjust your W4 to request further withholding there and possibly reduce the need for estimated payments. Estimated tax payments also come into play with large investment earnings. The amount that you need to prepay the IRS is impacted by the safe harbor rule, which I am sure others will provide the exact details on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c409a1afbc53fbc1ed1a0b689ab8c03a",
"text": "Assuming you are Resident Indian. As per Indian Income Tax As per section 208 every person whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000, shall pay his tax in advance in the form of “advance tax”. Thus, any taxpayer whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000 has to pay his tax in advance by the due dates prescribed in this regard. However, as per section 207, a resident senior citizen (i.e., an individual of the age of 60 years or above) not having any income from business or profession is not liable to pay advance tax. In other words, if a person satisfies the following conditions, he will not be liable to pay advance tax: Hence only self assessment tax need to be paid without any interest. Refer the full guideline on Income tax website",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c240eb80447171c476c7943200e8042",
"text": "One possibility that I use: I set up an LLC and get paid through that entity. Then I set up a payroll service through Bank of America and set up direct deposit so that it is free. I pay myself at 70% of my hourly rate based on the number of hours I work, and the payroll service does all the calculations for me and sets up the payments to the IRS. Typically money is left over in my business account. When tax time rolls around, I have a W2 from my LLC and a 1099 from the company I work for. I put the W2 into my personal income, and for the business I enter the revenue on the 1099 and the payroll expenses from paying myself; the left over in the business account is taxed as ordinary income. Maybe it's overkill, but setting up the LLC makes it possible to (a) set up a solo 401(k) and put up to $51k away tax-free, and (b) I can write off business expenses more easily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07b1bf8262c1ae737d88e0063c01632c",
"text": "I agree with your strategy of using a conservative estimate to overpay taxes and get a refund next year. As a self-employed individual you are responsible for paying self-employment tax (which means paying Social Security and Medicare tax for yourself as both: employee and an employer.) Current Social Security Rate is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45%, so your Self-employment tax is 15.3% (7.65%X2) Assuming you are single, your effective tax rate will be over 10% (portion of your income under $ 9,075), but less than 15% ($9,075-$36,900), so to adopt a conservative approach, let's use the 15% number. Given Self-employment and Federal Income tax rate estimates, very conservative approach, your estimated tax can be 30% (Self-employment tax plus income tax) Should you expect much higher compensation, you might move to the 25% tax bracket and adjust this amount to 40%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7ccac55c68e68fb150691852e53e0c9",
"text": "Havoc P's answer is good (+1). Also don't forget the other aspects of business income: state filing fees, county/city filing fees, business licenses, etc. Are there any taxes you have to collect from your customers? If you expect to make more this year, then you should make estimated quarterly tax payments. The first one for 2011 is due around the same time as your federal income tax filing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bda83ebf364b9539c7d3420fd51a854d
|
Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers?
|
[
{
"docid": "0d54bb4724c3cde18970948c74e5dec8",
"text": "What you see on XE, is the rate at which it is being traded in the market. What you receive from a broker is the rate minus a fee, for the service being provided. You can check what rates are available for visa and mastercard on the following websites. Visa rates Mastercard rates I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. This is a mirage and isn't going to help much. The prices you pay might be reflecting the exchange rates, difference in the product quality and other factors too. Rates are fixed for a day, so any FX movement you see in the market willn't be reflected in what you pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4b740c53cd6ff4f2ff8b29ed3c99642",
"text": "I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. How do you plan to do this? If you are using a debit or credit card on a CAD account, then you will pay that bank's exchange rate to pay for goods and services that are billed in foreign currency. If you plan on buying goods and services from merchants that offer to bill you in CAD for items that are priced in foreign currency (E.g. buying from Amazon.co.uk GBP priced goods, but having Amazon bill your card with equivalent CAD) then you will be paying that merchant's exchange rate. It is very unlikely that either of these scenarios would result in you paying mid-market rates (what you see on xe.com), which is the average between the current ask and bid prices for any currency pair. Instead, the business handling your transaction will set their own exchange rate, which will usually be less favorable than the mid-market rate and may have additional fees/commission bolted on as a separate charge. For example, if I buy 100 USD worth of goods from a US vendor, but use a CAD credit card to pay, the mid-market rate on xe.com right now indicates an equivalent value of 126.97 CAD. However the credit card company is more likely to charge closer to 130.00 CAD and add a foreign transaction fee of maybe $2-3, or a percentage of the transaction value. Alternatively, if using something like Amazon, they may offer to bill the CAD credit card in CAD for those 100 USD goods. No separate foreign transaction fee in this case, but they are still likely to exchange at the less favorable 130.00 rate instead of the mid-market rates. The only way you can choose to pay in the cheapest equivalent currency is if you already have holdings of all the different currencies. Then just pay using whichever currency gets you the most bang for your buck. Unless you are receiving payments/wages in multiple currencies though, you're still going to have to refill these accounts periodically, thus incurring some foreign transaction fees and being subject to the banker's exchange rates. Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers? It depends on who will be handling your transaction. Amazon will tell you at the checkout what exchange rate they will apply if you are having them convert a bill into your local currency for you. For credit/debit card transactions processed in a different currency than the attached account, you need to look at your specific agreement or contact the bank to see which rate they use for daily transactions (and where you can obtain these rates), whether they convert on the day of the transaction vs. the day it posts to your account, and how much they add on ($ and/or %) in fees and commission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bcdf4cca2c9f6777c2b69ade14f4138",
"text": "Current and past FX rates are available on Visa's website. Note that it may vary by country, so use your local Visa website.",
"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": "652a441b503ccae88a469cfbf4f0a0d6",
"text": "I can't think of any specifically, but if you haven't already done so it would be worthwhile reading a textbook on macro-economics to get an idea of how money supply, exchange rates, unemployment and so on are thought to relate. The other thing which might be interesting in respect of the Euro crisis would be a history of past economic unions. There have been several of these, not least the US dollar (in the 19C, I believe); the union of the English and Scottish pound (early 1600s); and the German mark. They tend to have some characteristic problems, caused partly by different parts of the union being at different stages in an economic cycle. Unfortunately I can't think of a single text which gathers this together.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0044afa440570181fb34cb566eaab389",
"text": "I found the zephyr database, which does the job. Nonetheless if someone knows other (open) sources, be welcome to answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e61919cc2567f96df4868a9c4de17281",
"text": "At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "bd7f2b503ced211bf1dc76b6d304183f",
"text": "Central banks don't generally post exchange rates with other currencies, as they are not determined by central banks but by the currency markets. You need a source for live exchange rate data (for example www.xe.com), and you need to calculate the prices in other currencies dynamically as they are displayed -- they will be changing continually, from minute to minute.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7ff0489f0eabd8d4d808b9215088b15",
"text": "You can get this data from a variety of sources, but likely not all from 1 source. Yahoo is a good source, as is Google, but some stock markets also give away some of this data, and there's foreign websites which provide data for foreign exchanges. Some Googling is required, as is knowledge of web scraping (R, Python, Ruby or Perl are great tools for this...).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81a0892a695ba40344a68db23cb8c3a6",
"text": "moneydashboard.com claims to be the UK's Mint but I have problem using it with my HSBC account right now. I have contacted their helpdesk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b0d59e3f864aab765fbc03b515de78f",
"text": "\"The setting of interest rates (or \"\"repurchase rates\"\") varies from country to country, as well as with the independence of the central bank. There are a number of measurements and indices that central bankers can take into account: This is a limited overview but should give an indication of just how complex tracking inflation is, let alone attempting to control it. House prices are in the mix but which house or which price? The choice of what to measure faces the difficulty of attempting to find a symmetrical basket which really affects the majority regularly (and not everyone is buying several new houses a year so the majority are ring-fenced from fluctuations in prices at the capital end, but not from the interest-rate end). And this is only when the various agencies (Statistics, Central Bank, Labour, etc.) are independent. In countries like Venezuela or Argentina, government has taken over release of such data and it is frequently at odds with individual experience. Links for the US: And, for Australia:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "041ce37bd0f111523e88e92d4ce75aaf",
"text": "\"Large multinationals who do business in multiple locales hedge even \"\"stable\"\" currencies like the Euro, Yen and Pound - because a 5-10% adverse move in an exchange rate is highly consequential to the bottom line. I doubt any of them are going to be doing significant amounts of business accepting a currency with a 400% annual range. And why should they? It's nothing more than another unit of payment - one with its own problems.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0eea496577f21e08aba1c08f0120db3",
"text": "\"I've been doing a bunch of Googling and reading since I first posed this question on travel.SE and I've found an article on a site called \"\"thefinancebuff.com\"\" with a very good comparison of costs as of September 2013: Get the Best Exchange Rate: Bank Wire, Xoom, XE Trade, Western Union, USForex, CurrencyFair by Harry Sit It compares the following methods: Their examples are for sending US$10,000 from the US to Canada and converting to Canadian dollars. CurrencyFair worked out the cheapest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db751b9cc469f547550a323044b23d8e",
"text": "For manual conversion you can use many sites, starting from google (type 30 USD in yuan) to sites like xe.com mentioned here. For programmatic conversion, you could use Google Calculator API or many other currency exchange APIs that are available. Beware however that if you do it on the real site, the exchange rate is different from actual rates used by banks and payment processing companies - while they use market-based rates, they usually charge some premium on currency conversion, meaning that if you have something for 30 dollars, according to current rate it may bet 198 yuan, but if he uses a credit card for purchase, it may cost him, for example, 204 yuan. You should be very careful about making difference between snapshot market rates and actual rates used in specific transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a63c6cf65d6173908d16b4ae483f407",
"text": "I thought to enlarge on user Zephyr's comment above. PC Financial seems to fail to calculate explicitly and then display the cashback reward return of 1%, for the benefit of consumers; does it want to conceal or mislead or conceal customers. Anyhow, I show this using this info below. I'll just calculate using the rate for 'everywhere you shop', since many deem travel a luxury. (1) 20,000 PC points = $20 in Free Groceries Minimum redemption is 20,000 PC Points (2) Earn 10 PC points for every $1 spent, everywhere you shop Earn 20 PC points for every $1 spent on travel services at pctravel.ca† Cashback Reward Rate = Reward/Expenditure. I find confusing the exposition '20,000 PC points = $20', because this is NOT the cost or expenditure; I regard this as the reward. The key step is to calculate the expenditure needed to achieve this reward, which again is 20,000 PC points. Thus, we must attain (1) from (2), and must solve for ¿ in this ratio problem: 10/20,000 = $1/¿ ===> ? = $2000. So $2000 must be spent, to reap $20 as the reward. Altogether, cashback reward = $20/$2000 = 0.01 = 1%. QED. I Googled this card before, and I infer from this article that PC changed its cashback ratios: You get five PC points for every dollar you spend on your bank card at participating stores where President’s Choice products are sold. This is a bit disappointing as I can do the math in my head and determine that the PC points rewards are only worth 0.5% of your purchase amount. I had expected at least 1% to compete with the top reward credit cards. Also, the webpage errs in the following; the 'cent' is supposed to be a dollar: PC points are worth one tenth of a cent each. So if you use the minimum allowable amount of PC points of 20,000, you will get $20.00 worth of groceries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8257d17b4fce98bacecffd5f57a491f1",
"text": "\"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. Why move funds back? If you want to lock in current exchange rates, figure out how much money you are likely to spend in Australia for the next six months. Move just enough funds to cover that to an Australian bank. Leave the remainder in the United States (US), as your future expenses will be in US dollars. So long as you don't find some major, unanticipated purchase, this covers you. You have enough money for the next six months with no exchange rate worries. At the end of the six months, if you fall slightly short, cover with your credit card as you are doing now. You'll take a loss, but on a small amount of money. If you have a slight excess and you were right about the exchange rate, you'll make a little profit at the end. If you were wrong, you'll take a small loss. The key here is that you should be able to budget for your six months. You can lock in current exchange rates just for that amount of money. Moving all your funds to Australia is a gamble. You can certainly do that if you want, but rather than gambling, it may be better to take the sure thing. You know you need six months expenses, so just move that. You will definitely be spending six months money in Australia, so you are immune to exchange rate fluctuations for that period. The remainder of your money can stay in the US, as that's where you plan to spend it. However, recent political events back in the States have me (and, I'm sure, every currency speculator and foreign investor) worried that this advantage will not last for much longer. If currency speculators expect exchange rates to fall, then they'd have already bid down the rates. I.e. they'd keep speculating until the rates did fall. So the speculators expect the current rates are correct, otherwise they'd move them. Donald Trump's state goal is to increase exports relative to imports. If he's successful, this could cause the US dollar to fall to make exports cheaper and imports more expensive. However, if his policies fail, then the opposite is likely to happen. Most of his announced trade policies are more likely to increase the value of the dollar than to decrease it. In particular, that is the likely result of increased tariffs. If you are worried about Trump failing, then you should worry about a strong dollar. That's more in line with actual speculation since the election. I don't know that I'd make a strong bet in either direction. Hedging makes more sense to me, as it simply locks in the current situation, which you apparently find favorable. Not hedging at all might produce some profit if the dollar goes up. Gambling all your funds might produce some profit if the dollar goes down. The middle path of hedging just what you're spending is the safest if least likely to produce profit. My recommendation is to hedge the six months expenses and enjoy your time abroad. Why worry about political events that you can't control? Enjoy your working (studying) vacation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8a3b86208adcc243e3092e47447862d",
"text": "It seems like there are a few different things going on here because there are multiple parties involved with different interests. The car loan almost surely has the car itself as collateral, so, if you stop paying, the bank can claim the car to cover their costs. Since your car is now totaled, however, that collateral is essentially gone and your loan is probably effectively dead already. The bank isn't going let you keep the money against a totaled car. I suspect this is what the adjuster meant when he said you cannot keep the car because of the loan. The insurance company sounds like they're going to pay the claim, but once they pay on a totaled car, they own it. They have some plan for how they recover partial costs from the wreck. That may or may not allow you (or anyone else) to buy it from them. For example, they might have some bulk sale deal with a salvage company that doesn't allow them to sell back to you, they may have liability issues with selling a wrecked car, etc. Whatever is going on here should be separate from your loan and related to the business model of your insurance company. If you do have an option to buy the car back, it will almost surely be viewed as a new purchase by the insurances company and your lender, as if you bought a different car in similar condition.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7075fde55b4af49ce22d25d5fdc4f5f6
|
Can landlord/property change unit after approval and payment of fees?
|
[
{
"docid": "5143aeb0b0a00bf3eeba177754bca3aa",
"text": "\"Without the specifics of the contract, as well as the specifics of the country/state/city you're moving to, it's hard to say what's legal. But this also isn't law.se, so I'll answer this from the point of view of personal finance, and what you can/should do as next steps. Whenever paying an application fee or a deposit, you need to ensure that you have in writing exactly what you're applying for or putting a deposit in for. Whether this is an apartment, a car, or a loan, before any money changes hands, you need to get in writing exactly what you're putting that money to. So for a car, you'd want to have the complete specifications - make, model, year, color, extra packages, and any relevant loan information if applicable. You wouldn't just hand a dealer $2000 for \"\"a Toyota Camry\"\", you'd make sure it was specified which one, in writing, as well as the total you're expecting to pay. Same for an apartment: you should have, in writing (email is fine) the specific unit you are putting a deposit for, and the specific rate you'll be paying, and the length of time the lease is for. This is to avoid a common tactic: bait and switch, which is what it looks like you've run into. A company puts forth a \"\"nice\"\" model, everything looks good, you get far enough in that it seems like you're locked in - and then it turns out you're really getting a less nice model that's not as ideal as whatever you signed up for. Now if you want to get what you originally signed up for you need to pay extra - presumably \"\"something was wrong in the original ad\"\", or something like that. And all you can hear in the background is Darth Vader... \"\"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.\"\" So; what do you do when you've been bait-and-switched? The best thing to do is typically to walk away. Try to get your application fee back; you may or may not be able to, but it's worth a shot, and even if you cannot, walk away anyway. Someone who is going to bait-and-switch on you is probably not going to be a good landlord; my guess is that rent is going to keep going up beyond the level of the market, and you probably can kiss your security deposit goodbye. Second, if walking away isn't practical for whatever reason, you can find out what the local laws are. Some locations (though very few, sadly) require advertised prices to be accurate; particularly the fact that they re-advertised the unit again for the same rate suggests they are falling afoul of that. You can ask around, search the internet, or best yet talk to a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing; some of them will be willing to at least answer a few questions for free (hoping to score your business for an easy, profitable lawsuit). Be aware that it's not exactly a good situation to be in, to be suing your landlord; second only to suing your employer, in my opinion, in terms of bad things to do while hoping to continue the relationship. Find an alternative as soon as you can if you go this route. In the future, pay a lot of attention to detail when making application fees. Often the application fee is needed before you get into too much detail - but pick a location that has reasonable application fees, and no extras. For example, in my area, it's typical to pay a $25 application fee, nonrefundable, to do the credit check and background check, and a refundable $100-$200 deposit to hold the unit while doing that; a place that asks for a non-refundable deposit is somewhere I'd simply not apply at all.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "554772f1fd22785cb52c3fab4b5a1063",
"text": "In Massachusetts, we have a similar law. Each tenant fills out a W9 and the account is in their name. You need to find a bank willing to do this at no cost, else fees can be problematic. With today's rates, any fee at all will exceed interest earned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "146939b11f6b5588c7c46d9512c63c47",
"text": "what I should think about. If you decide to do this - get everything in writing. Get lease agreements to enforce the business side of the relationship. If they are not comfortable with that much formality, it's probably best not to do it, I'm not saying that you should not do this - but that you need to think about these type of scenarios before committing to a house purchase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc62179673f52b1f7b197fcb3a9b4e35",
"text": "If it is a separate unit from the rest of the property, you can use that portion as an investment property. the part, or unit, you are living in is your primary residence. The remainder is your investment. You are eligible to not pay capital gains on the portion you live in After two years. As always consult a tax accountant For advice... Also, if this is less then 4 unit, you may he able to finance the sale of the home with an FHA loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5a6e5ffd6b132189f7b39f5213d9725",
"text": "I have no idea about India, but in many countries there are companies that specialize in property management. This means they will take on the business of maintaining the properties, finding tenants, doing paperwork and background checks, collecting rents and evicting tenants if necessary. Obviously for this they require a fee, but essentially the owner gets to sit back and do nothing except collect a cheque every month. In my country some real estate agents are in this business as well, though for 20 apartments I would be looking for a specialized firm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f47d532ee2ff1cd4da42aa86e7f3042",
"text": "Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) have different end of term dates but by less than a month. Both have summer sessions, but most students do not stay over the summer. You can rent over the summer, but prices fall by a lot. Thirty to forty thousand students leave over the summer between the two. Only ten to twenty thousand remain throughout the year and not all of those are in Oakland (the neighborhood in Pittsburgh where the universities are located). So many of the landlords in Oakland have the same problem. Your competitors will cut their rates to try to get some rent for the summer months. This also means that you have to handle eight, nine, and three month leases rather than year long and certainly not multiyear leases. You're right that you don't have to buy the latest appliances or the best finishes, but you still have to replace broken windows and doors. Also, the appliances and plumbing need to mostly work. The furnace needs to produce heat and distribute it. If there is mold or mildew, you will have to take care of it. You can't rely on the students doing so. So you have to thoroughly clean the premises between tenants. Students may leave over winter break. If there are problems, the pipes may freeze and burst, etc. Since they're not there, they won't let you know when things break. Students drop out during the term and move out. You probably won't be able to replace them when that happens. If you have three people in two bedrooms, two of them may be in a romantic relationship. Romantic relationships among twenty-year olds end frequently. Your three people drops back to two. Your recourse in that case is to evict the remaining tenants and sue for breach of contract. But if you do that, you may not replace the tenants until a new term starts. Better might be to sue the one who left and accept the lower rent from the other two. But you likely won't get the entire rent amount for the remainder of the lease. Suing an impoverished student is not the road to riches. Pittsburgh is expected to have a 6.1% increase in house prices which almost all of it is going to be pure profit. I don't know specifically about Pittsburgh, but in the national market, housing prices are about where they were in 2004. Prices were flat to increasing from 2004 to 2007 and then fell sharply from 2007 to 2009, were flat to decreasing from 2009 to 2012, and have increased the last few years. Price to rent ratios are as high now as in 2003 and higher than they were the twenty years before that. Maybe prices do increase. Or maybe we hit a new 20% decrease. I would not rely on this for profit. It's great if you get it, but unreliable. I wouldn't rely on estimates for middle class homes to apply to what are essentially slum apartments. A 6% average may be a 15% increase in one place and a 3% decrease in another. The nice homes with the new appliances and the fancy finishes may get the 15% increase. The rundown houses in a block where students party past 2 AM may get no increase. Both the city of Pittsburgh and the county of Allegheny charge property taxes. Schools and libraries charge separate taxes. The city provides a worksheet that estimates $2860 in taxes on a $125,000 property. It doesn't sound like you would be eligible for homestead or senior tax relief. Realtors should be able to tell you the current assessment and taxes on the properties that they are selling you. You should be able to call a local insurance agent to find out what kinds of insurance are available to landlords. There is also renter's insurance which is paid by the tenant. Some landlords require that tenants show proof of insurance before renting. Not sure how common that is in student housing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5462c5440487993203311af78d85f3d5",
"text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. If you're absolutely sure you didn't just send money to a scammer impersonating a landlord, this has nothing to do with fraud-- they're playing a game with you. By changing the account number frequently, it makes it more likely you make a mistake in entering the payment account. When they come back to you a few days past due saying \"\"we never received your rent,\"\" you'll eventually realize it got sent to the wrong account. Now you owe them late fees, and there's really nothing you can do about it-- you did not in fact pay them on time; you sent it to the wrong account! It's an easy way for them to collect an additional few thousand dollars a year. Anytime a small business or landlord says they have to do something \"\"weird\"\" to reduce fraud, chances are it's a pretense to you getting hosed in some way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe01cf783517851190e850c782fee163",
"text": "The first question is low long will you wish to stray there? It costs of lot in legal changes other changes plus taxes to buy and sell, so if you are not going to wish to live somewhere for at least 5 years, then I would say that renting was better. Do you wish to be able to make changes? When you rent, you can’t change anything without getting permission that can be a pain. Can you cope with unexpected building bills? If you own a home, you have to get it fixed when it breaks, but you don’t know when it will break or how much it will cost to get fixed. Would you rather do a bit of DIY instead of phone up a agent many times to get a small problem fixed? When you rent, it can often take many phone calls to get the agent / landlord to sort out a problem, if own your home, out can do yourself. Then there are the questions of money that other people have covered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c733ed11fa81897066eedb0e3e07ccf",
"text": "You are neglecting a few very important things around real estate transactions in Belgium So in the end a 300K building may cost you more than 340K, let's take some unexpected costs into account and use 350K for remainder of calculation. Even worse if it's newly built (which I doubt) the first percentage is 21% (VAT) instead of 10%. All these costs can be checked on the useful site www.hoeveelkostmijnhuis.be Now, aside from that most banks will and actually have to demand you pay part of all this yourself. So you can't do 5*60K (or 5*70K now). Mostly banks will only finance up to about 90% of the value of the building, so 90% of 300K, which is 270K (5*54K), the other 80K (5*16K) you have to pay yourselves. But it could be the bank goes as low as 80%. Another part to complicate the loan is how much you can pay a month. Since the mortgage crisis they're very strict on this. There are lots of banks that will not allow you to make monthly payments of more than 33% of your monthly income when you are going to live there. This is a nuisance even when buying one house, you want to buy 2. Odds seem low they'll accept high monthly payments because you either need an additional loan or need to pay rent, so don't count on a 5y deal. Now this is all based on a single loan, it will probably be a bit different with multiple loans. However, it is unlikely any bank will accept this, even if all loans are with the same bank. You need to consider the basics of a real-estate loan: A bank trusts you can pay it off and if not they can seize the real-estate hoping to regain their initial investment. It's very hard to seize a complete asset if only one out of 5 loan-takers defected. You could maybe do this with another less restrictive/higher risk type of loan but rates will be a lot higher (think 5-6% instead of 1.5%). And don't underestimate the running costs: for that price and 5 rooms in that city you're likely looking at an older building. Expect lots of cost for maintenance and keeping the building according to code. Also expect costs for repairs (you rent to students...). You'll also have to pay quite a bit of money on insurances and of course on real estate taxes (which are average in Ghent). Also factor in that currently there is not a housing shortage for Ghent students so you might not always have a guaranteed occupation. Also take into account responsibility: if a fire breaks out or the house collapses or a gas leak occurs, you might be sued. It doesn't matter if you're at fault, it's costly and a big nuisance. Simply because you didn't think of any of this: don't do this. It's better to invest in real estate funds. But if you still think you can do better then all the landlords Ghent is riddled with, don't do it as a personal investment. Create a BVBA, put some investment in here (like 10-20K each), approach a bank with a serious business plan to get the rest of the money as a loan (towards a single entity - your BVBA) and get things going. When the money comes in you can either give yourselves a salary or pay out profits on the shares. You may be confused about how rich you can become because we as a nation tend to overestimate the profitability of real estate. It's really not that much better than other investments (otherwise everybody would only invest in real estate funds). There are a few things that skew our vision however:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08196dee65ad564e99103b126fed405a",
"text": "Yes you will need an emergency fund for the rental. Besides appliances, or a roof, that might need to be replaced, you will also have to protect against being unable to rent the unit. Another risk is that you may have a tenant damage the unit. While you can get the money through the courts it may take months or longer. You can't wait for the money before you repair the unit. Keeping the rental unit funds separate from the rest of your funds will allow you to make sure you are adequately protecting yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bbabfbd9e194fcd9a3fcd566cc2d9c1",
"text": "\"I don't know what country you live in or what the laws and practical circumstances of owning rental property there are. But I own a rental property in the U.S., and I can tell you that there are a lot of headaches that go with it. One: Maintenance. You say you have to pay an annual fee of 2,400 for \"\"building maintenance\"\". Does that cover all maintenance to the unit or only the exterior? I mean, here in the U.S. if you own a condo (we call a unit like you describe a \"\"condo\"\" -- if you rent it, it's an apartment; if you own it, it's a condo) you typically pay an annual fee that cover maintenance \"\"from the walls out\"\", that is, it covers maintenance to the exterior of the building, the parking lot, any common recreational areas like a swimming pool, etc. But it doesn't cover interior maintenance. If there's a problem with interior wiring or plumbing or the carpet needs to be replaced or the place needs painting, that's up to you. With a rental unit, those expenses can be substantial. On my rental property, sure, most months the maintenance is zero: things don't break every month. But if the furnace needs to be replaced or there's a major plumbing problem, it can cost thousands. And you can get hit with lots of nitnoid expenses. While my place was vacant I turned the water heater down to save on utility expenses. Then a tenant moved in and complained that the water heater didn't work. We sent a plumber out who quickly figured out that she didn't realize she had to turn the knob up. Then of course he had to hang around while the water heated up to make sure that was all it was. It cost me, umm, I think $170 to have someone turn that knob. (But I probably saved over $15 on the gas bill by turning it down for the couple of months the place was empty!) Two: What happens when you get a bad tenant? Here in the U.S., theoretically you only have to give 3 days notice to evict a tenant who damages the property or fails to pay the rent. But in practice, they don't leave. Then you have to go to court to get the police to throw them out. When you contact the court, they will schedule a hearing in a month or two. If your case is clear cut -- like the tenant hasn't paid the rent for two months or more -- you will win easily. Both times I've had to do this the tenant didn't even bother to show up so I won by default. So then you have a piece of paper saying the court orders them to leave. You have to wait another month or two for the police to get around to actually going to the unit and ordering them out. So say a tenant fails to pay the rent. In real life you're probably not going to evict someone for being a day or two late, but let's say you're pretty hard-nosed about it and start eviction proceedings when they're a month late. There's at least another two or three months before they're actually going to be out of the place. Of course once you send them an eviction notice they're not going to pay the rent any more. So you have to go four, five months with these people living in your property but not paying any rent. On top of that, some tenants do serious damage to the property. It's not theirs: they don't have much incentive to take care of it. If you evict someone, they may deliberately trash the place out of spite. One tenant I had to evict did over $13,000 in damage. So I'm not saying, don't rent the place out. What I am saying is, be sure to include all your real costs in your calculation. Think of all the things that could go wrong as well as all the things that could go right.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d1b5fd24a8e63382d7e89adc5f8419e",
"text": "How you can pay your rent is really up to your landlord. They are, however, unlikely to take a credit card, for at least two reasons. Firstly they are unlikely to have the means to take electronic payment Second, and more importantly, merchants get charged a percentage of the transaction. These fees can be quite high to them for premium cards like travel and gold cards; three, four or even five percent of the value of the transaction. This is sometimes why you see cash discounted pricing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e3b1edfe5ef47fef78db9ccac632684",
"text": "Some of the information on the HUD-1 form would have been useful to complete the income tax paperwork the next spring. It would have had numbers for Taxes, and interest that were addressed at the settlement. It is possible it is mixed in with the next years tax information. If I needed a HUD-1 form from 15 years ago, I wouldn't ask the real estate agent, I would ask the settlement company. They might have a copy of the paperwork. They might have to retrieve it from an archive, so it could take time, and they could charge a fee. The local government probably doesn't have a copy of the HUD-1, but they do have paperwork documenting the sale price when the transaction took place. I know that the jurisdictions in my area have on-line the tax appraisal information going back a number of years. They also list all the purchases because of the change in ownership, and many also list any name changes. You probably don't want a screen capture of the transactions page, but the tax office might have what you need. This is the same information that the title search company was retrieving for their report. Question. Is there going to be capital gains? For a single person there is no gains unless the increase in price is $250,000. For a couple it is $500,000. I am ignoring any time requirements because you mentioned the purchase was 15 years ago. I am also assuming that it was never a rental property, because that would require a lot more paperwork.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1996cb63df62a460f6fbd2a182ca33f5",
"text": "Also you would need to consider any taxation issues. As he will be paying you rent you will need to include this as income, plus any capital gains tax on the re-sale of the property may need to be paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "111f2cea2838b7e7938d9cf6d03b3316",
"text": "Check out the property websites to get an idea of how much, the property in question, could yield as rent. Most give a range and you can get a good idea of it. Just one example from zoopla. Likewise you can refer mouseprice or rightmove and get yourself an idea. Property websites do a lot of data crunching to do an update, but their figure is only a guide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37dd675a555975031f5b9bf30896f679",
"text": "An important factor you failed to mention is the costs associated with owning a home. For example, every 10 / 15 years, you have to replace your AC unit ($5k) and what about replacing a roof (depends on size, but could be $10k)? Not to mention, paying a couple thousand annually for property taxes. When renting, you never have to worry about any of these three.....",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.