query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
415b073d2f887f9c25f6869577755db4
|
How to get rid of someone else's debt collector?
|
[
{
"docid": "c15816a0b00f6eee6143953eeca0884a",
"text": "\"Sue the debt collectors in small claims court. There are several example stories around the internet, but this is a well written one from the consumerist. If your phone is a cell phone: \"\"it is against the law for a company to leave a pre-recorded message on your cell phone.\"\" In fact, the call frequency increased once they realized they had reached a live person. I called each of these companies multiple times, and though I was given assurances each time that my number would be taken off of their lists, the calls continued, morning, noon and night. At my wits end, I decided the only way to have the harassing calls stop was to file suits against the collection companies. It's very important to understand that it is against the law for a company to leave a pre-recorded message on your cell phone. Armed with this knowledge, I filed suit against several of the collection companies. I filed in small claims court so I did not need to hire an attorney, and the process was as simple as completing a paragraph on a complaint form. For evidence, I had over a hundred Google Voicemail transcripts showing the times the companies called and the text of the pre-recorded messages. Mysteriously, the calls all stopped immediately on the same date the collection companies received the certified letters stating they were being sued. Then a new flurry of calls began pouring in. This time it was their attorneys. The attorneys representing these out of state collection companies were all desperate to settle out of court. hey did not want to incur the expense of traveling for court or hiring a local law firm who wasn't on retainer. They also understood they had no justifiable defense for the calls. To make a long story short, so far I have successfully sued 3 of these collection companies and settled for more than $5,000 out of court. All it cost me was $35 and 20 minutes per suit. Making these companies pay is the only incentive for them to stop their illegal and harassing practices. If more consumers knew their rights and actually took a few minutes to stand up for them, it would become less profitable for these companies to conduct business the way they do now. -Source And whether you have a cell phone or land line, It is illegal for the debt collectors to tell you they are calling to collect a debt for someone else under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (wikipedia, ftc docs). What Remedies Are Available If The Debt Collector Violates The Law Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, you have the right to sue a debt collector in state or federal court within one year from the date of the violation. If you win, you may recover damages in the amount of any losses you suffered as a result of the violation, plus an additional amount of up to $1,000.00. You may also be able to recover court costs and attorney fees. If the same debt collector has engaged in unlawful conduct with a number of consumers, it may be possible to find a lawyer who will file a class action lawsuit. -Source With regard to whether you can sue under FDCPA if you are not the debtor, one FDCPA lawyer (take with grain of salt) says yes: Did you know that it doesn't matter if you owe the account the debt collector is calling you about or not? If a debt collector violates the FDCPA (the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692 et. seq.) that debt collector could be liable to pay you statutory damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. -Source\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3aa73616af3f7a1e40c6ed37c63ab375",
"text": "\"As a former debt collector myself, I can tell you that we did occasionally get someone claiming that they weren't who they really were. However, it was pretty obvious who was telling the truth after a while. Above all else, just be calm and polite. Technically, you can also say \"\"do not call this number again\"\" and they have to stop calling, but I wouldn't do this right off the bat. Its best if they are convinced that you aren't the guy they're looking for. Calmness and politeness are traits that debtors usually lack, sometimes because they are just normal people overwhelmed with their situation, and sometimes because they are irrational loser (sorry, but its true). Either way, if you are consistently calm and unconcerned about their threats, they will either give up or realize you aren't the guy. Eventually they will stop calling you (or at least I know I would have stopped calling you).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9520bf26d6485a6f3ddee445a98cb94a",
"text": "Suing is a legitimate option as well as screening your calls but here's another idea which has personally worked and relates to the collections I did for awhile. Talk with the collector. Outstanding debt gets sold many times and each time a new collector gets their hands on an account they do their due diligence which means calling every single number multiple times. Collectors a looking for consumers who actively evade collections calls for years. My recommendation is to use logic and explain the situation. Give your first name and describe when you received the phone number and then ask a simple question. When in the last 3 1/2 years have you or any collector had a successful hit from this number. They'll respond never in 3 1/2 years. The collector notes the account for themselves and future collectors. Debt collectors are about about making money, not wasting time and they do review all notes pertaining to an account. Will it work? Maybe not but hopefully it will stop the calls with a short conversation. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f8e0f5aa9201d430285f1d60f079b89",
"text": "I have been in a similar position for quite a while now and the only thing that seems to help is screening phone calls. I have a long list of collector numbers set to not ring on my phone. They can still leave a voice mail but they never do. As far as I know there aren't any laws that protect you from nuisance phone calls. FDCPA letters only apply to the debtor and the collector it is sent to it doesn't protect an unrelated third party from getting annoying phone calls. I have a feeling that sending FDCPA letters is just confirming that you probably are the debtor and prolong the collection calls.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8edad472ccf151ee0ee506b18eda838",
"text": "Step 1)I answer the phone saying it is illegal to call my cell phone and I want all further communications in writing. Put this number on the do not call list and reverse search the number they dialed. Step 2) I say that whoever changed their number and how long I have owned the number and I call forward when they don't stop. I forward calls through google voice and mark them as spam. They get a sorry number was disconnected recording. Step 3) REALLY HARSH. I say the person passed away only if they aren't deterred enough by the previous efforts or they get cross into extreme harassment. Usually Step 1 is enough to stop the calls no matter who they ask for.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5ba4e9b75cd4469b202c5d4dbf60ec8c",
"text": "Get it in writing from the debt collector first that there will be a pay for deletion. This is the most fail safe way that I know to get a collections debt completely removed from a credit report, and also without the chance of it being put back on the report by another agency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b6e21401fe58d768d763e0c093cfcf13",
"text": "First things first, its always good to set the records straight. When you are trying to clear your debt do them one by one and ask the collection agent that you would pay in full only if the records would be deleted from your credit history and most of the collection agencies are happy to take it off your credit report as they are getting the money. This would work generally only when you pay the full amount. I can guarantee you this because I have tried it myself after hearing about it from my friends. If you have already paid whole amount already then records of your payments generally will not be available after 2 years with any banks even the big ones like Bank of America or Wells Fargo. That means if they don't have the records no body else would because its a burden as your payment is written off. You can file a dispute to credit bureaus for your payment history and if they couldn't provide you the history they have to take your record off your history even they know that you have delinquent history because they don't have enough proof to confirm that. And when you file a dispute its always good to file it by paper as they have to write back and you can ask hard copies of the proofs which are very difficult to get. One more thing if you want to dispute it might take couple of months atleast and you need to have patience because you already might have known how important credit history is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ef47bc6e77a08529092f461b85d993b",
"text": "\"The lead story here is you owe $12,000 on a car worth $6000!! That is an appalling situation and worth a lot to get out of it. ($6000, or a great deal more if the car is out of warranty and you are at risk of a major repair too.) I'm sorry if it feels like the payments you've made so far are wasted; often the numbers do work out like this, and you did get use of the car for that time period. Now comes an \"\"adversary\"\", who is threatening to snatch the car away from you. I have to imagine they are emotionally motivated. How convenient :) Let them take it. But it's important to fully understand their motivations here. Because financially speaking, the smart play is to manage the situation so they take the car. Preferably unbeknownst that the car is upside down. Whatever their motivation is, give them enough of a fight; keep them wrapped up in emotions while your eye is on the numbers. Let them win the battle; you win the war: make sure the legal details put you in the clear of it. Ideally, do this with consent with the grandfather \"\"in response to his direct family's wishes\"\", but keep up the theater of being really mad about it. Don't tell anyone for 7 years, until the statute of limitations has passed and you can't be sued for it. Eventually they'll figure out they took a $6000 loss taking the car from you, and want to talk with you about that. Stay with blind rage at how they took my car. If they try to explain what \"\"upside down\"\" is, feign ignorance and get even madder, say they're lying and they won, why don't they let it go? If they ask for money, say they're swindling. \"\"You forced me, I didn't have a choice\"\". (which happens to be a good defense. They wanted it so bad; they shoulda done their homework. Since they were coercive it's not your job to disclose, nor your job to even know.) If they want you to take the car back, say \"\"can't, you forced me to buy another and I have to make payments on that one now.\"\"\"",
"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": "46129c258ecb12f5a85af074100f5744",
"text": "\"This will probably require asking the SO to sign a quitclaim and/or to \"\"sell\"\" him her share of the vehicle's ownership and getting it re-titled in his own name alone, which is the question you actually asked. To cancel the cosigner arrangement, he has to pay off the loan. If he can't or doesn't want to do that in cash, he'd have to qualify for a new loan to refinasnce in his name only, or get someone else (such as yourself) to co-sign. Alternatively, he might sell the car (or something else) to pay what he still owes on it. As noted in other answers, this kind of mess is why you shouldn't get into either cosigning or joint ownership without a written agreement spelling out exactly what happens should one of the parties wish to end this arrangement. Doing business with friends is still doing business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e93e2ae3614116bb408f1dff585a5e2",
"text": "\"The debt collection agency needs to see a copy of the notice from the bank that the $300 charge is a disputed and fraudulent charge. Also require them to provide proof. To reduce your stress, you should contact a lawyer to handle the debt collection agency. Disputing the information on your credit report is exactly the way to \"\"fix\"\" that issue. All they need to see is the bank letter stating that the charges were fraudulent. The credit reports should show that item as disputed for at least a month if not remove it entirely. The bank should be able to provide with copies although you may have to pay a research charge if the information is old enough. I recommend talking to your local branch manager to get what you need.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3214ebb04e28fd0dda794aa50304dcb3",
"text": "There are a number of ways to get out of debt. First, stop spending on that card. You could apply for a 0% APR credit card and if you qualify with a credit limit equal (or higher) than what you have now, then you could transfer the balance and start on paying that down. You could also work out a payment plan with Chase - they would rather have some of the money vs. none of it. But you need to reach out sooner rather than later to avoid having it sent to collections. Since your cash flow is terrible, you could also pick up a second or third part time job - deliver pizzas, work at the mall, whatever, to help increase your cash flow and use that money to pay down your debts. The Federal Trade Commission has some resources on how to cope with debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edd337c752d17dd13f30fed364e2a553",
"text": "@littleadv has said most of what I'd say if they had not gotten here first. I'd add this much, it's important to understand what debt collectors can and cannot do, because a lot of them will use intimidation and any other technique you can think of to get away with as much as you will let them. I'd start with this PDF file from the FTC and then start googling for info on your state's regulations. Also it would be a very very good idea to review the documents you signed (or get a copy) when you took out the loan to see what sort of additional penalties etc you may have already agreed to in the event you default. The fee's the collector is adding in could be of their own creation (making them highly negotiable), or it might be something you already agreed to in advance(leaving you little recourse but to pay them). Do keep in mind that in many cases debt collectors are ausually llowed at the very least to charge you simple interest of around 10%. On a debt of your size, paid off over several years, that might amount to more than the $4K they are adding. OTOH you can pretty much expect them to try both, tacking on 'fees' and then trying to add interest if the fees are not paid. Another source of assistance may be the Department of Education Ombudsman: If you need help with a defaulted student loan, contact the Department of Education's Ombudsman at 877-557-2575 or visit its website at www.fsahelp.ed.gov. But first you must take steps to resolve your loan problem on your own (there is a checklist of required steps on the website), or the Ombudsman will not assist you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "958adefe530f3b14d55e5dd7a5537ad3",
"text": "If one does pay, one should only pay after they get a letter stating such a payment fully satisfies the debt. Then, one should only pay via money order or cashiers check. Never pay by personal check or credit card. Send such a payment via certified mail to ensure delivery. As stated in other answers: There might be an issue of honoring your debts, but that doesn't come into play here. You already didn't pay your debt, and the original owner of the note already took money. Paying this debt is only money in pocket of the debt collector. The scammier they are, and the worse they treat you would factor in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd157acb0e9dec2b7b4343d6a0a95b9d",
"text": "Maybe you know something I don't, but as far as I'm aware, you can't get rid of it. **Student loans are with you for life**. You will be sent to collections, but it doesn't disappear after 7 years. Settlements are incredibly rare unless your loan is ballooning... in which case, a settlement doesn't change all that much. You will lose tax benefits, the government will garnish 15% of your wages, and you will be a debt slave until it's paid off. Defaulting on student loans is much, much more painful than defaulting on private loans. The *only* exception to this is if you've made 120 months of repayments while employed at a qualifying non-profit or governmental organization. And even then, it only applies to federal loans and there are exceptions (better not refinance or the clock resets, for example). Also, if you default, you will no longer be eligible. Private student loans have no escape hatch and are equally unforgiving. Thank your elected representatives.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de6d817069222c9fc39f519b322d65f8",
"text": "\"Step one: Contact the collection agency. Tell them that they have the wrong person, and the same name is just a coincidence. I would NOT give them my correct social security number, birth date, or other identifying information. This could be a total scam for the purpose of getting you to give them such personal identifying information so they can perform an identity theft. Even if it is a legitimate debt collection agency, if they are overzealous and/or incompetent, they may enter your identifying information into their records. \"\"Oh, you say your social security number isn't 123-45-6789, but 234-56-7890. Thank you, let me update our records. Now, sir, I see that the social security number in our records matches your social security number ...\"\" Step two: If they don't back off, contact a lawyer. Collection agencies work by -- call it \"\"intimidation\"\" or \"\"moral persuasion\"\", depending on your viewpoint. Years after my wife left me, she went bankrupt. A collection agency called me demanding payment of her debts before the bankruptcy went through. I noticed two things about this: One, We were divorced and I had no responsibility for her debts. Somehow they tracked down my new address and phone number, a place where she had never even lived. Why should I pay her debts? I had no legal obligation, nor did I see any moral obligation. Two, Their pitch was that she/I should pay off this debt before the bankruptcy was final. Why would anyone do that? The whole point of declaring bankruptcy is so you don't have to pay these debts. They were hoping to intimidate her into paying even though she wouldn't be legally obligated to pay. If you don't owe the money, of course there's no reason why you should pay it. If they continue to pursue you for somebody else's debt, in the U.S. you can sue them for harassment. There are all sorts of legal limits on what collection agencies are allowed to do. Actually even if they do back off, it might be worth contacting a lawyer. I suspect that asking your employer to garnish your wages without a court order, without even proof that you are responsible for this debt, is a tort that you could sue them for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcc928967afec28bfb27fe29d9bdec82",
"text": "\"Step 1. Log onto chase.com Step 2. Click on the account in question Step 3. Add \"\"Outstanding balance\"\" to \"\"Pending charges\"\" Step 4. Pay said total amount With all the energy you spent trying to find out if they're doing something illegal, you could've resolved the original issue yourself and be done with it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f364aab021845547452178a44d83fa4",
"text": "The issue is that the lender used two peoples income, debts, and credit history to loan both of you money to purchase a house. The only way to get a person off the loan, is to get a new loan via refinancing. The new loan will then be based on the income, debt, and credit history of one person. There is no paperwork you can sign, or the ex-spouse can sign, that will force the original lender to remove somebody from the loan. There is one way that a exchange of money between the two of you could work: The ex-spouse will have to sign paperwork to prove that it is not a loan that you will have to payback. I picked the number 20K for a reason. If the amount of the payment is above 14K they will have to document for the IRS that this is a gift, and the amount above 14K will be counted as part of their estate when they die. If the amount of the payment is less than 14K they don't even have to tell the IRS. If the ex-souse has remarried or you have remarried the multiple payments can be constructed to exceed the 14K limit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5825b7937a3c46f4dad210d283bc7aa",
"text": "Also see who has the authority to delete bills or items on bills. This was a huge scam with some servers I've worked with. If you can delete an entire bill that was paid in cash then that's money in your pocket.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ae8757cb4b52e6c71805b1c811186142
|
What should I do with the change in my change-jar?
|
[
{
"docid": "9abb9c67f5d9b752d21d6be9d5cd17f1",
"text": "Every now and then I fill a pocket with a handful of coins and spend it on a very small shop on my way home, i.e. a loaf of bread (£1.50), a pint of milk (50p) by using the self-check out (Tesco/Sainsbury's) which has a coin slot or even better the little bowl where you put coins down. I find this pretty straightforward. There's no point having a jar at home worth £50.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7b16d8fd53d30ebcc15ef950ddf947f",
"text": "I don't like paying the percentage on the supermarket coin counters, and don't feel like buying a coin counter so I have my own solution. I keep higher value coins for vending machines, parking meters etc, and lower value coins I put in charity boxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93f36ea4cc5f8bfbaeb82ff0e07742a1",
"text": "Are you in an occupation that regularly collects change or is this change left in your pocket at the end of the day? Here in the US it is typically worth it to invest in some automatic coin counters if you are in an occupation that regularly collects coins. In your case you can collect the little baggies from the bank, use your coin counters and then make a deposit. Here is an example of US coin counters. If it is just pocket change then in the morning, make it a habit of taking some with you. This way you are less likely to break larger bills. Also if you are making a deposit at the bank, add some change to the deposit without making it to annoying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008bb5e59816da765e0c8664641db52a",
"text": "\"In the U.S. at least, a lot of these CoinStar machines are now owned and operated by the store or other venue in which they're placed, as a convenience to customers, and the fee for using it is waived. These machines, even without a fee attached, are still beneficial to the store, for two reasons. First, they bring in potential customers; the machine usually spits out a ticket that you take to the cashier, meaning you pass by all the impulse items they put in the checkout lines, and someone using the change catcher will invariably pick up a pack of gum or a magazine to spend your newfound wealth. The fact that one store has a change machine while another doesn't can also be the difference between choosing that store over the other for a planned shopping trip. Second, and less obvious, a store that owns a CoinStar machine has full access to the change people put in it (hey, they own the machine and are paying out cash on the receipts it spits out). During normal use of a cash drawer or register to take in money, large bills ($20/20€ or larger) are accumulated to be \"\"broken\"\", small to medium bills (1-10 units) stay roughly static in number as payments are made and larger bills are broken, and coins are invariably depleted as change is paid out. This means the average retail store needs a constant incoming supply of coinage, and that generally happens either through armored car service or similar commercial banking (which costs the store money), or through \"\"change catchers\"\" like gumball machines (which usually can't supply all the needed denominations). The Coinstar machine effectively reverses at least a portion of this attrition of coins and accumulation of large bills; the store can now receive coins and pay out large bills as a part of its day to day business, reducing or even eliminating the need to have a bank or armored car perform this service. Anyway, check and see whether the CoinStar machine you last used is still operating on a percentage-fee basis; it might be the case that the store has purchased the machine outright and is offering its services free of charge. If not, look around; other stores may be waiving the CoinStar fee where this one isn't (or they may have similar, non-CoinStar branded machines). Lastly, as other answers have mentioned, if you cash out in the form of a gift card, there's no fee, so you can pick a gift card to a store you're likely to visit anyway; in the U.S. there are a lot of good choices, like home improvement stores, Starbucks, major department stores/clothing retailers, and even an airline.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a9ba9d1b4bcc1164a90d43eebcb8187",
"text": "\"I don't know if those machines work this way in the UK too, but here in the US you can often avoid the coin-counting fee if you opt to convert the money into a gift certificate instead of cash. I routinely convert my coins to Amazon gift certificate money with no charge. Individual machines differ in which particular gift cards they use, but at the least, almost all of them offer the option for a no-fee conversion to a voucher/gift certificate to the store where the machine is. So it's likely you'd be able to use the machine to convert the cash to \"\"money\"\" you can use to buy groceries.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fbd6c2dfd00266e39e2432389d038f40",
"text": "The money NEVER becomes your money. It has been paid to you in error. Your best response is to write to the company who has paid you in error and tell them that for the responsibilty and subsequent stress caused to you by them putting you in a position of looking after their money you hereby give notice that you are charging them $50 per week until such time as they request the repayment of their money. Keep a dated copy of your letter and if they fail to respond then in 12 weeks they will have to pay you $600 to retrieve their $600. If they come back to you anytime after that they will OWE YOU money - but I wouldn't push for payment on that one. I have successfully used this approach with companies who send unsolicited goods and expect me to mess about returning them if I don't want them. I tell them the weekly fee I am charging them for storage and they quickly make arrangements to either take their goods back or (in one case) told me to keep them.",
"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": "adbd26a148ea4692bd89917533e0a3ab",
"text": "\"First of all, it's quite common-place in GnuCash (and in accounting in general, I believe) to have \"\"accounts\"\" that represent concepts or ideas rather than actual accounts at some institution. For example, my personal GnuCash book has a plethora of expense accounts, just made up by me to categorize my spending, but all of the transactions are really just entries in my checking account. As to your actual question, I'd probably do this by tracking such savings as \"\"negative expenses,\"\" using an expense account and entering negative numbers. You could track grocery savings in your grocery expense account, or if you want to easily analyze the savings data, for example seeing savings over a certain time period, you would probably want a separate Grocery Savings expense account. EDIT: Regarding putting that money aside, here's an idea: Let's say you bought a $20 item that was on sale for $15. You could have a single transaction in GnuCash that includes four splits, one for each of the following actions: decrease your checking account by $20, increase your expense account by $20, decrease your \"\"discount savings\"\" expense account by $5, and increase your savings account (where you're putting that money aside) by $5.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3643d7beeb720ccb8b716a16c50eaae2",
"text": "\"The best I could come up with would be to simply ask for the amount of \"\"notes\"\" and \"\"coins\"\" you would like, and specify denominations thereof. The different currency labels exist for the reason that not all of them are valued the same, so USD 100 is not the same as EUR 100. To generalize would mean some form of uniformity in the values, that just isn't there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82556cf6dd6ff545b2163acfa5412108",
"text": "\"An accounting general ledger is based on tracking your actual assets, liabilities, expenses, and income, and Gnucash is first and foremost a general ledger program. While it has some simple \"\"budgeting\"\" capabilities, they're primarily based around reporting how close your actual expenses were to a planned budget, not around forecasting eventual cash flow or \"\"saving\"\" a portion of assets for particular purposes. I think the closest concept to what you're trying to do is that you want to take your \"\"real\"\" Checking account, and segment it into portions. You could use something like this as an Account Hierarchy: The total in the \"\"Checking Account\"\" parent represents your actual amount of money that you might reconcile with your bank, but you have it allocated in your accounting in various ways. You may have deposits usually go into the \"\"Available funds\"\" subaccount, but when you want to save some money you transfer from that into a Savings subaccount. You could include that transfer as an additional split when you buy something, such as transferring $50 from Assets:Checking Account:Available Funds sending $45 to Expenses:Groceries and $5 to Assets:Checking Account:Long-term Savings. This can make it a little more annoying to reconcile your accounts (you need to use the \"\"Include Subaccounts\"\" checkbox), and I'm not sure how well it'd work if you ever imported transaction files from your bank. Another option may be to track your budgeting (which answers \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\") separately from your accounting (which only answers \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\"), using a different application or spreadsheet. Using Gnucash to track \"\"budget envelopes\"\" is kind of twisting it in a way it's not really designed for, though it may work well enough for what you're looking for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f836cd217d6541bbfe6c08fcca1719a",
"text": "The question is about the US but to add the European perspective: The rule over here (I only know German law, but assume it's the same for all of the Euro area) is that you need more than half of the bill or you have to be able to prove that more than half of the bill was destroyed (good luck) in order to get it replaced. Deformed coins can also be replaced. But all only as long as you didn't break it on purpose. So giving half of the bill to the cab driver would be on purpose and (if the central bank knows about it) make the bill (or coin) invalid. German information: https://www.bundesbank.de/Navigation/DE/Aufgaben/Bargeld/Beschaedigtes_Geld/beschaedigtes_geld.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb31aa53139708b7c3827e7e98a67dc2",
"text": "\"As others have noted, US law says that if you have over half the bill, it's worth the full value, under half is worth nothing. I presume if it is very close to half, if even careful measurements show that you have 50.5%, you'll have difficulty cashing it in, precisely because the government and the banking system aren't going to allow themselves to be easily fooled by someone cutting bills in half and then trying to redeem both halves. I've seen several comments on here about how you'd explain to the bank how so many bills were cut in half. What if you just told them the truth? Not the part about killing someone, of course, but tell them that you made a deal, neither of you wanted to bother with complex contracts and having to go to court if the other side didn't pay up, so your buddy cut all the bills in half, etc. As you now have both halves and they clearly have the same serial number, this no real evidence of fraud. Okay, this is technically illegal -- 18 US Code Section 333, \"\"Whoever mutilates, CUTS, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.\"\" But you didn't do it, the other guy did. I presume the point of this law is to say that you can't get a hold of currency belonging to someone else and mutilate it so as to make it worthless. As he's now given you both halves, I doubt anyone would bother to track him down and prosecute him. Just BTW, while checking up on the details of the law, I stumbled across 18 USC 336, which says that it's illegal to write a check for less than $1, with penalties of 6 months in prison. I just got a check from AT&T for 15 cents for one of those class action suits where the lawyers get $100 million and the victims get 15 cents each. Apparently that was illegal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fc6ec273abd1bf196aef714bfe04e1d",
"text": "A pencil and a small notepad really work here, but if you have a smartphone then some way of using it makes sense as well. Try: Transcribe all of these onto a better record at the end of each day. Also record the amount of money in your wallet/purse/pocket every day, and check to see if the amounts you've recorded add up to the amount you've spent. It'll be easier to remember that newspaper you bought at the end of the day, rather than a week later. Or just record the difference as 'miscellaneous'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3fbc8def7c62a89fdfaa00e3e20db01",
"text": "\"As others have mentioned, it's important that there is a fair assessment of the market value of the items being donated. Joel's point about the government not looking kindly upon overvalued donations also applies in Canada: the CRA doesn't look kindly upon donation schemes such as \"\"buy-low, donate-high arrangements.\"\" Since nobody has offered up authoritative information for Canada yet, here's something to look at: Excerpts: 3) Gifts in kind of a taxpayer include capital property, depreciable property, personal-use property ... [...] 6) The fair market value of a gift in kind as of the date of the donation (the date on which beneficial ownership is transferred from the donor to the donee) must be determined before an amount can be recorded on a receipt for tax purposes. [...] The person who determines the fair market value of the property must be competent and qualified to evaluate the particular property being transferred by way of a gift. Property of little or only nominal value to the donor will not qualify as a gift in kind. Used clothing of little value would be an example of a non-qualifying contribution. You will need to find a charity that would both value the books you would be donating and be willing to issue you a receipt for your charitable donation. Whatever receipt they issue should be in line with fair market value of the goods donated. Assume your donation receipt will be challenged, and keep both: Finally, reasonable comparables might be prices for similar used goods, not a percentage of new. Though, if you can't find a price for a particular title in the used market, an estimate consistent with other valuations in the lot would be better than nothing, perhaps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c35140524ccf9b513b1f488b10cb16a",
"text": "\"of course if you asked me to give you $24.4955 I can't. No, but if I asked you to give me $24.4955 and you gave me a piece of paper saying \"\"I O U $24.4955\"\", and then this happened repeatedly until I had collected 100 of these pieces of paper from you, then I could give them back to you in exchange for $2449.55 of currency. There's nothing magical about the fact that there doesn't happen to be a $0.001 coin in current circulation. This question has some further information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f938294b1e5fa886e3ab9505c06a4245",
"text": "\"The question I think is not: \"\"What is a certain material worth in a coin\"\" but \"\"What is a certain material worth in a coin and how much does it cost to get it out of there\"\". Just because something contains a certain element doesn't mean that you can get to it cheaply. Also as George Marian said: I don't think that it is legal to melt coins. So if the time comes you would first have to find a company willing to process the coins etc. Also you should not only compare what it is worth now and at a later time but also what that money would be worth if you put it into a high yielding savings account or something like that.\"",
"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": "d3a3089e2ce15824c40e5d7da0c02e29",
"text": "Is this even legal? How can a bank refuse to deposit legal tender in the United States? Legal for all debts, public or private, doesn't mean quite what I used to think, either. Per The Fed: This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise. Yes, they can refuse loose change. Also, they aren't refusing your deposit, just requiring that it be rolled. What do I do with my change? I do not want to spend the time rolling it, and I am not going to pay a fee to cash my change. There aren't many other options, change is a nuisance. I believe Coinstar machines reduce/remove their fee if you exchange coins for gift cards, so that might be the best option for convenience and retaining value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ab1ec05f4e7fd0f7cefbed8358144d4",
"text": "Shred it all. You might want to keep a record going back at most a year, just in case. But just in case of what? What is a good idea is to have an electronic record. It's a good practice to know how your spending changes over time. Beyond that, it's just a fire hazard. The thing is, I know I'm right in the above paragraph, but I'm a hypocrite: I have years' worth of paper records of all kinds. I need to get rid of it. But I have grown attached. I have trucked this stuff around in move after move. I have a skill at taking good care of useless things. I've even thought of hiring somebody to scan it all in for me, so that I can feel safe shredding all this paper without losing any of the data. But that's insane!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abcb1b0b0dcb18fd1442e0ce54d706b1",
"text": "So your dollar never leaves America until it leaves for an investment - which would be FDI. If you sent the dollar home to Mexico, that’s a remittance current account flow. Then later, you want to use that dollar for a housing investment in Mexico, it’s just domestic investment. If you move to the US, I believe that’s another remittance flow (though it might even be a service flow because the bank is the one moving the dollar!). Then to invest in Mexico you need to go through an FDI channel.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9a5dab1d0dc6b395be2632cdd6232832
|
Negative Balance from Automatic Options Exercise. What to do?
|
[
{
"docid": "ba6acbc9647ce3489c4578930493d383",
"text": "Automatic exercisions can be extremely risky, and the closer to the money the options are, the riskier their exercisions are. It is unlikely that the entire account has negative equity since a responsible broker would forcibly close all positions and pursue the holder for the balance of the debt to reduce solvency risk. Since the broker has automatically exercised a near the money option, it's solvency policy is already risky. Regardless of whether there is negative equity or simply a liability, the least risky course of action is to sell enough of the underlying to satisfy the loan by closing all other positions if necessary as soon as possible. If there is a negative equity after trying to satisfy the loan, the account will need to be funded for the balance of the loan to pay for purchases of the underlying to fully satisfy the loan. Since the underlying can move in such a way to cause this loan to increase, the account should also be funded as soon as possible if necessary. Accounts after exercise For deep in the money exercised options, a call turns into a long underlying on margin while a put turns into a short underlying. The next decision should be based upon risk and position selection. First, if the position is no longer attractive, it should be closed. Since it's deep in the money, simply closing out the exposure to the underlying should extinguish the liability as cash is not marginable, so the cash received from the closing out of the position will repay any margin debt. If the position in the underlying is still attractive then the liability should be managed according to one's liability policy and of course to margin limits. In a margin account, closing the underlying positions on the same day as the exercise will only be considered a day trade. If the positions are closed on any business day after the exercision, there will be no penalty or restriction. Cash option accounts While this is possible, many brokers force an upgrade to a margin account, and the ShareBuilder Options Account Agreement seems ambiguous, but their options trading page implies the upgrade. In a cash account, equities are not marginable, so any margin will trigger a margin call. If the margin debt did not trigger a margin call then it is unlikely that it is a cash account as margin for any security in a cash account except for certain options trades is 100%. Equities are convertible to cash presumably at the bid, so during a call exercise, the exercisor or exercisor's broker pays cash for the underlying at the exercise price, and any deficit is financed with debt, thus underlying can be sold to satisfy that debt or be sold for cash as one normally would. To preempt a forced exercise as a call holder, one could short the underlying, but this will be more expensive, and since probably no broker allows shorting against the box because of its intended use to circumvent capital gains taxes by fraud. The least expensive way to trade out of options positions is to close them themselves rather than take delivery.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1d01e1fea797ef94a46da74aca2097ac",
"text": "You can buy a put and exercise it. The ideal option in this case will have little time premium left and very near the money. Who lent you the shares? The person that sold you the option! In reality, when you exercise, assignment can be random, but everything is [supposedly] accounted for as the option seller had to put up margin collateral to sell the option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f17641cdf736100a78e0521fc4b00a67",
"text": "\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2424c6baddb65bae9cef52f2015b2a94",
"text": "\"For personal investing, and speculative/ highly risky securities (\"\"wasting assets\"\", which is exactly what options are), it is better to think in terms of sunk costs. Don't chase this trade, trying to make your money back. You should minimize your loss. Unwind the position now, while there is still some remaining value in those call options, and take a short-term loss. Or, you could try this. Let's say you own an exchange traded call option on a listed stock (very general case). I don't know how much time remains before the option's expiration date. Be that as it may, I could suggest this to effect a \"\"recovery\"\". You'll be long the call and short the stock. This is called a delta hedge, as you would be delta trading the stock. Delta refers to short-term price volatility. In other words, you'll short a single large block of the stock, then buy shares, in small increments, whenever the market drops slightly, on an intra-day basis. When the market price of the stock rises incrementally, you'll sell a few shares. Back and forth, in response to short-term market price moves, while maintaining a static \"\"hedge ratio\"\". As your original call option gets closer to maturity, roll it over into the next available contract, either one-month, or preferably three-month, time to expiration. If you don't want to, or can't, borrow the underlying stock to short, you could do a synthetic short. A synthetic short is a combination of a long put and a short call, whose pay-off replicates the short stock payoff. I personally would never purchase an unhedged option or warrant. But since that is what you own right now, you have two choices: Get out, or dig in deeper, with the realization that you are doing a lot of work just to trade your way back to a net zero P&L. *While you can make a profit using this sort of strategy, I'm not certain if that is within the scope of the money.stachexchange.com website.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ec6f6d74a9946f9c7b7f8f7132d8642",
"text": "I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.) It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.) This is what I was thinking: * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage. I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money. By the way, thanks for your time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3e856d7e6912de3291f0bf813915525",
"text": "\"You're supposed to be filling form 433-A. Vehicles are on line 18. You will fill there the current fair value of the car and the current balance on the loans. The last column is \"\"equity\"\", which in your case will indeed be a negative number. The \"\"value\"\" is what the car is worth. The \"\"equity\"\" is what the car is worth to you. IRS uses the \"\"equity\"\" value to calculate your solvency. Any time you fill a form to the IRS - read the instructions carefully, for each line and line. If in doubt - talk to a professional licensed in your state. I'm not a professional, and this is not a tax advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cc4b08bb104d39397a5e68f8d951d9f",
"text": "Is it just -34*4.58= -$155.72 for CCC and -11*0.41= -$4.51 for DDD? Yes it needs to be recorded as negative because at some point in time, the investor will have to spend money to buy these shares [cover the short sell and return the borrowed shares]. Whether the investor made profit or loss will not be reflected as you are only reflecting the current share inventory.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5965bd7a680970693cf6bcc12c3f4698",
"text": "If you are worried about elections think about writing some calls against your long positions to help hedge. If you have MSFT (@ $51.38 right now) you could write a MSFT Call for lets say $55. You can bank $170 per 100 shares (let's say you write it at 1.70) (MSFT 01/20/2017 55.00 C 1.73 +0.01 Bid: 1.69 Ask: 1.77) If MSFT goes down a lot you will have lost $170 less per 100 shares than you would have because you wrote an option for $170. You will in fact be break even if the stock falls to 49.68 on the Jan Strike Date. If MSFT goes up $3.50 you will have made $170 and still have your MSFT stock for a net gain of $520. $170 in cash for the premium and your stock is now worth $350 more. If MSFT goes up $3.62 or more you will have made the max $530ish and have no MSFT left potentially losing additional profit if the stock goes up like gang busters. So is it worth it for you to get $170 in cash now and risk the stock going up more than $5 between now and Jan. That is the decision to make here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f1e8c5ba2bbd1302597d9a89ab0c762",
"text": "In the question you cited, I assumed immediate exercise, that is why you understood that I was talking about 30 days after grant. I actually mentioned that assumption in the answer. Sec. 83(b) doesn't apply to options, because options are not assets per se. It only applies to restricted stocks. So the 30 days start counting from the time you get the restricted stock, which is when you early-exercise. As to the AMT, the ISO spread will be considered AMT income in the year of the exercise, if you file the 83(b). For NQSO it is ordinary income. That's the whole point of the election. You can find more detailed explanation on this website.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1b26e4fdb718d4896257f694c9bf7c5",
"text": "I would expect that your position will be liquidated when the option expires, but not before. There's probably still some time value so it doesn't make sense for the buyer to exercise the option early and take your stock. Instead they could sell the option to someone else and collect the remaining time value. Occasionally there's a weird situation for whatever reason, where an option has near-zero or negative time value, and then you might get an early exercise. But in general if there's time value someone would want to sell rather than exercise. If the option hasn't expired, maybe the stock will even fall again and you'll keep it. If the option just expired, maybe the exercise just hasn't been processed yet, it may take overnight or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cde1f27c0432fe1c2c56d9cb5231181",
"text": "If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0). For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1. If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2. Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0. But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ffea634afb34ef8300a36b65480bcd8",
"text": "\"I assume that whatever you're holding has lost a considerable amount of its value then? What sort of instrument are we talking about? If the margin call is 14k on something you borrowed against the 6900 you're a bit more leveraged than \"\"just\"\" another 100%. The trading company you're using should be able to tell you exactly what happens if you can't cover the margin call, but my hunch is that selling and taking the cash out ceased to be an option roughly at the time they issued the margin call. Being labelled as a day trader or not most likely did not have anything to do with that margin call - they're normally issued when one or more of your leveraged trades tank and you don't have enough money in the account to cover the shortfall. Not trying to sound patronising but the fact that you needed to ask this question suggests to me that you shouldn't have traded with borrowed money in the first place.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3504646177c81bd2ab7056d0a1b40547",
"text": "In the money puts and calls are subject to automatic execution at expiration. Each broker has its own rules and process for this. For example, I am long a put. The strike is $100. The stock trades at the close, that final friday for $90. I am out to lunch that day. Figuratively, of course. I wake up Saturday and am short 100 shares. I can only be short in a margin account. And similarly, if I own calls, I either need the full value of the stock (i.e. 100*strike price) or a margin account. I am going to repeat the key point. Each broker has its own process for auto execution. But, yes, you really don't want a deep in the money option to expire with no transaction. On the flip side, you don't want to wake up Monday to find they were bought out by Apple for $150.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89ec2c32f8875d784be9200e9b3c8c6d",
"text": "\"I think the issue you are having is that the option value is not a \"\"flow\"\" but rather a liability that changes value over time. It is best to illustrate with a balance sheet. The $33 dollars would be the premium net of expense that you would receive from your brokerage for having shorted the options. This would be your asset. The liability is the right for the option owner (the person you sold it to) to exercise and purchase stock at a fixed price. At the moment you sold it, the \"\"Marked To Market\"\" (MTM) value of that option is $40. Hence you are at a net account value of $33-$40= $-7 which is the commission. Over time, as the price of that option changes the value of your account is simply $33 - 2*(option price)*(100) since each option contract is for 100 shares. In your example above, this implies that the option price is 20 cents. So if I were to redo the chart it would look like this If the next day the option value goes to 21 cents, your liability would now be 2*(0.21)*(100) = $42 dollars. In a sense, 2 dollars have been \"\"debited\"\" from your account to cover your potential liability. Since you also own the stock there will be a credit from that line item (not shown). At the expiry of your option, since you are selling covered calls, if you were to be exercised on, the loss on the option and the gain on the shares you own will net off. The final cost basis of the shares you sold will be adjusted by the premium you've received. You will simply be selling your shares at strike + premium per share (0.20 cents in this example)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd95308a0ab5aabf13cc4cf9b2e7e920",
"text": "SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c5f3fa9c403ed07a04f73d4794e2a74",
"text": "\"You are thinking about it this way: \"\"The longer I wait to exericse, the more knowledge and information I'll have, thus the more confidence I can have that I'll be able to sell at a profit, minimizing risk. If I exercise early and still have to wait, there may never be a chance I can sell at a profit, and I'll have lost the money I paid to exercise and any tax I had to pay when I exercised.\"\" All of that is true. But if you exercise early: The fair market value of the stock will probably be lower, so you may pay less income tax when you exercise. (This depends on your tax situation. Currently, ISO exercises affect your AMT.) If the company goes through a phase where the value is unusually high, you'll be able to sell and still get the tax benefits because you exercised earlier. You avoid the nightmare scenario where you leave the company (voluntarily or not) and can't afford to exercise your options because of the tax implications. In many realistic cases, exercising earlier means less risk. Imagine if you're working at a company that is privately held and you expect to be there for another year or so. You are very optimistic about the company, but not sure when it will IPO or get acquired and that may be several years off. The fair market value of the stock is low now, but may be much higher in a year. In this case, it makes a lot of sense to exercise now. The cost is low because the fair market value is low so it won't result in a huge tax bill. And then when you leave in a year, you won't have to choose between forfeiting your options or borrowing money to pay the much higher taxes due to exercise them then.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fe29c70b2f4d72a6c62c42aeadc9410f
|
Employer skipped payments, should I allow them to defer payment until Jan 2017?
|
[
{
"docid": "8670fe180d96963e64f7335cd3d86721",
"text": "\"First, let's look at the tax brackets for single taxpayers in 2016: The cutoff between the 25% and 28% tax bracket is $91,150. You said that your gross is $87,780. This will be reduced by deductions and exemptions (at least $10,350). Your rental income will increase your income, but it is offset in part by your rental business expenses. For this year, you will almost certainly be in the 25% bracket, whether or not you receive your backpay this year. Next year, if you receive your backpay then and your salary is $11k higher, I'm guessing you'll be close to the edge. It is important to remember that the tax brackets are marginal. This means that when you move up to the next tax bracket, it is only the amount of income that puts you over the top that is taxed at the higher rate. (You can see this in the chart above.) So if, for example, your taxable income ends up being $91,160, you'll be in the 28% tax bracket, but only $10 of your income will be taxed at 28%. The rest will be taxed at 25% or lower. As a result, this probably isn't worth worrying about too much. A bit more explanation, requested by the OP: Here is how to understand the numbers in the tax bracket chart. Let's take a look at the second line, $9,276-$37,650. The tax rate is explained as \"\"$927.50 plus 15% of the amount over $9,275.\"\" The first $9,275 of your taxable income is taxed at a 10% rate. So if your total taxable income falls between $9,276 and $37,650, the first $9,275 is taxed at 10% (a tax of $927.50) and the amount over $9,275 is taxed at 15%. On each line of the chart, the amount of tax from all the previous brackets is carried down, so you don't have to calculate it. When I said that you have at least $10,350 in deductions and exemptions, I got that number from the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount. For 2016, the standard deduction for single taxpayers is $6,300. (If you itemize your deductions, you might be able to deduct more.) Personal exemptions for 2016 are at $4,050 per person. That means you get to reduce your taxable income by $4,050 for each person in your household. Since you are single with no dependents, your standard deduction plus the personal exemption for yourself will result in a reduction of at least $10,350 on your taxable income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2bc2c214b9eb7e002d1e82a7014e0c8",
"text": "TL;DR: The difference is $230. Just for fun, and to illustrate how brackets work, let's look at the differences you could see from changing when you're paid based on the tax bracket information that Ben Miller provided. If you're paid $87,780 each year, then each year you'll pay $17,716 for a total of $35,432: $5,183 + $12,532 (25% of $50,130 (the amount over $37,650)) If you were paid nothing one year and then double salary ($175,560) the next, you'd pay $0 the first year and $42,193 the next: $18,558 + $23,634 (28% of $84,410 (the amount over $91,150)) So the maximum difference you'd see from shifting when you're paid is $6,761 total, $3,380 per year, or about 4% of your average annual salary. In your particular case, you'd either be paying $35,432 total, or $14,948 followed by $20,714 for $35,662 total, a difference of $230 total, $115 per year, less than 1% of average annual salary: $5,183 + $9,765 (25% of $39,060 (the amount $87,780 - $11,070 is over $37,650)) $18,558 + $2,156 (28% of $7,700 (the amount $87,780 + $11,070 is over $91,150))",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "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": "72444a1e64993e7ab98a68200e75d954",
"text": "Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching. You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52eaf6d964328f4903cdb42885603788",
"text": "It's my understanding that deferred revenue will be included as income as the services are rendered. In this way, gains originating from deferred revenue are not recognized until they are actually earned. It's a formality so the accounting adheres to the matching principle. It may help to view a DR as an advance payment (say like what an airline may do with ticket purchases that occur before the flight). It sounds like you're wanting to penalize the business for having to eventually provide a service. But I don't know if that would be accurate, I mean, from the business's perspective, isn't it always preferable to be paid in advance? Are you concerned the company may not have any recourse should the customer try to back out or something? I don't think I'm understanding your question, could you come at it from another angle to explain it?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f34ae6731ec7e2a6fc4ab50ff0ac7e1e",
"text": "\"It has been reported in consumer media (for example Clark Howard's radio program) that the \"\"no interest for 12 months\"\" contracts could trick you with the terms and the dates on the contract. Just as an example: You borrow $1000 on 12/1/2013, same as cash for 12 months. The contract will state the due date very clearly as 12/1/2014. BUT they statements you get will take payment on the 15th of each month. So you will dutifully pay your statements as they come in, but when you pay the final statement on 12/15/2014, you are actually 14 days late, have violated the terms, and you now owe all the interest that accumulated (and it wasn't a favorable rate). That doesn't happen all the time. Not all contracts are written that way. But you better read your agreement. Some companies use the same as cash deal because they want to move product. Some do it because they want to trick you with financing. Bottom line is, you better read the contract.\"",
"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": "e51a65eb4d4db5998634f1c89bd9d272",
"text": "\"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \"\"deluxe\"\" or \"\"premier\"\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "525b16126118a6a76b0ba4d2aed044bc",
"text": "I think you're looking a step beyond the question being asked. This is a pretty simple accounting question that doesn't take into account any other activity, like earnings generated during the time period by the employee being paid. It's far more simple. Unpaid wages accrue to liabilities, assets remain constant because no cash leaves the door, this equity decreases equal to the change in liability. He's not deferring an expense, he accrued it at the time the work was done, he simply hasn't paid it. That's not the same as a DTA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "063b37e61a4683a727704eef73d1d360",
"text": "\"Is there any practical reason... to hold off on making payments until I receive a billing statement? Yes, a few: As for a zero balance, FICO consumer affairs manager Barry Paperno says, \"\"The idea here is the lower, the better, in terms of the utilization percentage, but something is better than nothing....The score wants to see some kind of activity.\"\" How low should you go? In a recent interview, FICO spokesman Craig Watts said, \"\"If your utilization is 10 percent or lower, you're in great shape as far as utilization goes.\"\" That being said, there are downsides especially if you wind up forgetting to make a payment. The easiest thing to do (also from a time management perspective) is to get your billing statement once a month, verify the purchases on it, and at that time you receive the statement schedule an online bill payment so that it will be paid in full before the due date. As Aganju points out, you don't have to wait for a paper bill in hand or even an e-mail notification; you can go online after your statement date to get the statement. This makes sure you won't have extra costs related to unreliability of mail (if you still receive paper statements)/e-mail, though it does require remembering to check (and/or setting a recurring calendar reminder). Paying much in advance of that, as is your current practice, might be a good idea to free up available balance if you are planning a purchase that would take you over your credit limit, but this should be relatively rare (and some credit card companies will raise that limit if you have been paying well and ask nicely, though find out first if they do a \"\"hard pull\"\" of your credit report for that).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5b3bab0b93e6ec8c3de5d92d1996680",
"text": "They gave advanced notice, so when the date is solidified, no one can say they didn't know anything. It's not as if the money is in limbo until then, it's still at fidelity. I am certain there will come time in '17 when you get a 30-60 day notice that the move will happen. There are rules that employers must deposit the money within X days of withholding from your check. But I don't believe there's anything against warning you too far in advance that a change in provider is planned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4896f11a944f6d57641a6383c67637c",
"text": "This is not your problem and you should not try to fix it. If your employer paid money into someone else's account instead of yours they should ask their bank to reverse it and should pay you your wages while they are waiting for this to be done. No bank will let you do anything about money paid by someone else into an account that is not yours, or give you details of someone else's account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96be169c2db8ab9588b647f3b54e964b",
"text": "By definition, this is a payroll deduction. There's no mechanism for you to tell the 401(k) administrator that a Jan-15 deposit is to be credited for 2016 instead of 2017. (As is common for IRAs where you do have the 'until tax time' option) If you are paid weekly, semi-monthly, or monthly, 12/31 is a Saturday this year and should leave no ambiguity about the date of your last check. The only unknown for me if if one is paid bi-weekly, and has a check covering 12/25 - 1/7. Payroll/HR will need to answer whether that check is considered all in 2016, all in 2017 or split between the two.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ca1b59e45e7dd98ad3c7f6ba8724c30",
"text": "They call you because that is their business rules. They want their money, so their system calls you starting on the 5th. Now you have to decide what you should do to stop this. The most obvious is to move the payment date to before the 5th. Yes that does put you at risk if the tenant is late. But since it is only one of the 4 properties you own, it shouldn't be that big of a risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c868a5a5da49707a69a0ddc035f9c7a4",
"text": "\"This is fairly simple, actually. You should insist on payment for the rent payment you never received and stop accepting cash payments. If you want to be nice, and believe the story, allow the tenant additional time or payment in installments for the missing $750, but this is a textbook example of why it's a bad idea to transact with cash. Insist on cash equivalents that are traceable and verifiable - check, money order or cashier's check, made out to you or your company name. Also, for what it's worth, you are not out $750, unless you choose to be. Your tenant is. \"\"I put cash in your mailbox\"\" is not proof of payment, and doesn't fly as payment anywhere. If it did, I'd never pay any of my bills.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d528af1915fd76bb48ff938a339e435",
"text": "Let's look at the two options. It sounds like, at this time, the company has enough cash to pay you a salary or pay your loan off, but not both at the same time. Ideally, in the future, there will be enough cash flow to be able to do both at the same time. If you start your salary now, when the cash flow increases to the point where the company can pay off your loan, you will continue to receive your salary while the loan is being repaid. So it is probably most advantageous to you to start the salary now and wait with the loan payments. (If you think that the company is not going to make it and there is a danger of not ever getting the loan repaid, this could change; however, you are probably optimistic about the company, or you wouldn't have made the loan and agreed to work for free in the first place.) With the other option, the company gets out of debt quicker and cheaper. I can totally understand your brother wanting to eliminate this debt ASAP. It looks like you and your brother had different expectations about what was going to happen. That's why it is so critical to put these kinds of agreements in writing. If you had had a payment schedule in your written loan agreement, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, the issue of how long you would continue to work for free would still be there, but this could also have been decided ahead of time. As is, you have two different things going on that were left up in the air with no formal agreement. As to what is fair, that is something only you and he can work out. Perhaps you can propose a payment schedule for your loan that the company can afford now while paying your salary; that way, you will start getting paid for working, and the company will start moving toward eliminating the debt. I hope that you will be able to agree to a solution without ruining the relationship you have with your brother. Besides the fact that family relationships are important, a rift between the two of you would certainly be disastrous for the company and, as a result, your and his finances.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
24191377d73541a1aa2c53b7dac6d257
|
Recognizing the revenue on when virtual 'credits' are purchased as opposed to used
|
[
{
"docid": "d76b0aa423ae2d10652b65376f7b65d4",
"text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cfc6a71d87f7cc84ff75401a7965d421",
"text": "I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4fe4886ea6863bd792a7277924d2b8b",
"text": "Purchase accounting requires that you mark assets, including PP&E to fair value. So let's say you bought a machine 5 years ago for $1,000 - you might have depreciated it to $250 on your balance sheet but it might actually be worth $900.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d1e91dd9b70da76f6ad1b4bb1a86ab0",
"text": "Personally I solve this by saving enough liquid capital (aka checking and savings) to cover pretty much everything for six months. But this is a bad habit. A better approach is to use budget tracking software to make virtual savings accounts and place payments every paycheck into them, in step with your budget. The biggest challenge you'll likely face is the initial implementation; if you're saving up for a semi-annual car insurance premium and you've got two months left, that's gonna make things difficult. In the best case scenario you already have a savings account, which you reapportion among your various lumpy expenses. This does mean you need to plan when it is you will actually buy that shiny new Macbook Pro, and stick to it for a number of months. Much more difficult than buying on credit. Especially since these retailers hate dealing in cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbc54297aa25d0a851d8421cd7854b7c",
"text": "\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "7e5b4f091f7a0e9f2328d42e944873bc",
"text": "I don't believe you would be able to with only Net Sales and COGS. Are you talking about trying to estimate them? Because then I could probably come up with an idea based on industry averages, etc. I think you would need to know the average days outstanding, inventory turnover and the terms they're getting from their vendors to calculate actuals. There may be other ways to solve the problem you're asking but thats my thoughts on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74025b05eba2366bf975acf56e3717e6",
"text": "\"It depends on the definition of earnings. A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce \"\"earnings\"\" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred). It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57fb897c059fe117bf76781c5306adb8",
"text": "\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \"\"recent equity issuance or M&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac94b3f7bd6bc33bd797644d875a4365",
"text": "\"One thing to keep in mind is that Prime day takes away sales from other days (maybe the two days leading up to and two days after). It would be interesting to see sales numbers by day around Prime Day and compare them to \"\"average\"\" days and see if customers bought less. Also, I assume the $1bn is Net Sales and not Gross Merchandise Volume.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e1634b86dc0379488255eb75820baf2",
"text": "\"I recently needed to compute a better balance that let us pick and choose what to include in the computed sum without losing information, so I revisited this topic and I'm pleased to say that I've found a solution that works (at least for our data - you may have transactions that this code doesn't recognize, but you can always modify it to match). My solution was written natively for MS SQL Server 2008 or later, it uses a scalar UDF, a VIEW, and a windowed aggregate (SUM OVER (ORDER BY ...) which means it should be almost-syntax compatible with PostgreSQL. MySQL does not support OVER but you can perform a running-sum using a variable with arithmetic addition directly in the SELECT clause. Create a database table with this schema (feel free to exclude columns you're not interested in, such as Option1Name): Create a UNIQUE index on TxnId - you could use it as a primary-key, I suppose. You might be tempted to create a Foreign-Key relationship between ReferenceTxnId and TxnId, however this will fail if you enforce it: we have many transactions where ReferenceTxnId points to a Transaction that doesn't exist. This is usually in the case of [Type] = 'Web Accept Payment Received' AND [Status] = 'Canceled'. We also have some TransactionId values longer than 17 characters: some TransactionIds start with \"\"U-\"\" - all pending money requests, I suspect this indicates the transaction is \"\"unfinished\"\". Re-download your entire PayPal History CSV files so that you have the latest retroactive updates. Import these CSV files into this PayPalHistory table. Do a simple test to see how bad PayPal's default data is: To find out where the differences are coming from, run this query: (The ORDER BY (...), RowId is to ensure consistent ordering when multiple transactions share the same timestamp) As you scroll through the results, you'll see how the naive SUM is thrown-off from the official PayPal-computed Balance column. So as you can see, the Net column value cannot always be trusted - what we need is to generate our own \"\"EffectiveNet\"\" value which is accurate - that is, the value is 0.00 for rows which do not affect the balance, instead of being what they are right now. The problem is, given a single row of data (such as any single row from the example table in my original Question) we have no way of inherently knowing what its \"\"EffectiveNet\"\" is. I have devised two functions to help solve this problem, the first function only looks at the ReferenceTxnId, Type and Status column values and generates accurate values for the vast majority of rows - indeed, in our dataset we only had one row for which this approach did not work. I recommend you try this one first and compare the running-sum value to ensure it works for your data: You can use this function in the query like so below, hopefully it should give you an accurate running-sum and balance figure at the end: 8. And here's the view that ties it all together: Used like so: I hope this helps anyone else wanting to do accurate bookkeeping with PayPal Transaction History files!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dba4f638e967cf689e1b735cc9daed10",
"text": "No, it would not show up on the income statement as it isn't income. It would show up in the cash flow statement as a result of financing activities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4250ef625b8db4e0671d6671878c66e2",
"text": "\"Debits' and \"\"Credits\"\" are terms used in double-entry bookkeeping. Each transaction is entered in two different places to be able to double-check accuracy. The total debits and total credits being equal is what makes the balance sheet balance. For explaining debits and credits, wikiversity has a good example using eggs that I found helpful as a student. Debits and Credits When a financial transaction is recorded, the Debits (Dr) and Credits (Cr) need to balance in order to keep the accounts in balance. An easy rule to remember is, \"\"Debit the Asset that Increases\"\" For example, if you want to practice accounting for cooking a simple breakfast, you might proceed as follows: To record breaking the eggs and putting the eggs in the frying pan In this transaction, an asset, (the egg) is split into parts and some of the asset goes in the pan and some in the trash. A Debit (Dr) is used to show that the assets in the pan and the trash both increase. A balancing Credit (Cr) is used to show that the amount of assets (whole eggs) in the egg carton has decreased. This transaction is in balance because the total Credits equal the total Debits. Everything that is covered by the Debits (yolk, white and shell) is also covered by the Credits (one whole egg)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e30ca5efd5d21101a2e6d781d8bcf48",
"text": "Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7f4767308966ca2738264c9fce47c28",
"text": "Lets say Debit is what you pay and Credit is what somebody else pays for you. A Debit card will charge your bank account directly. A Credit card will charge your bank account some time later. In both cases the shop owner has the money available directly. It's called Credit because somebody believes you will be able to pay your debt on time (or later with an interest). As for purchase and sales. A customer buys = makes a purchase. A shopkeeper sells = makes a sale. Note from a bar: I made an agreement with the bank. They don't sell beer, I don't give Credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7bb1920277a6e3077f9af827c5ce15d",
"text": "One explanation is that movie patrons are considering their total willingness to pay for the movie experience so that if the ticket price plus the market price of popcorn is less than their willingness to pay (WTP), the theater has an opportunity to extract more consumer surplus by charging higher than market prices for the popcorn (that is, price discrimination). There is a working paper on the subject by Gill and Hartmann (2008), the abstract of which reads: Prices for goods such as blades for razors, ink for printers and concessions at movies are often set well above cost. Theory has shown that this could yield a profitable price discrimination strategy often termed “metering.” The idea is that a customer’s intensity of demand for aftermarket goods (e.g. the concessions) provides a meter of how much the customer is willing to pay for the primary good (e.g. admission). If this correlation in tastes for the two goods is positive, a high price on the aftermarket good allows firms to extract a greater total price (admissions plus concessions) from higher type customers. This paper develops a simple aggregate model of discrete-continuous demand to motivate how this correlation can be tested using simple regression techniques and readily available firm data. Model simulations illustrate that the regressions can be used to predict whether aftermarket prices should be above, below or equal to their marginal cost. We then apply the approach to box-office and concession data from a chain of Spanish theaters and find that high priced concessions do extract more surplus from customers with a greater willingness to pay for the admission ticket. Locay and Rodriquez (1992) make a similar argument in a JPE article. They essentially argue that purchases of things like movie tickets are made by groups; once individuals are constrained by the group's choice, the firm has additional market power: We present models in which price discrimination in the context of a two-part price can occur in some competitive markets. Purchases take place in groups, which choose which firms to patronize. While firms are perfectly competitive with respect to groups, they have some market power over individual consumers, who are constrained by their groups' choices. We find that firms will charge an entry fee that is below marginal cost, and the second part of the price is marked up above marginal cost. The markup not only is positive but increases with the quality of the product. The quote you are looking for is similar, and again attributes the discrepancy to price discrimination. From the Armchair Economist (p. 159): The purpose of expensive popcorn is not to extract a lot of money from customers. That purpose would be better served by cheap popcorn and expensive movie tickets. Instead, the purpose of expensive popcorn is to extract different sums from different customers. Popcorn lovers, who have more fun at the movies, pay more for their additional pleasure. That is, some people like popcorn more than others. The latter idea is that the movie experience for popcorn lovers is worth more than the sum of its parts: that a movie ticket + popcorn is worth more than either of them separately for some people.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b1ff3ce6e154d192aadce74387fbd3ca
|
End of financial year: closing transactions
|
[
{
"docid": "ed09f5a61997ebe3e2fd0ddfe3a013fa",
"text": "\"I'm not sure there's a good reason to do a \"\"closing the books\"\" ceremony for personal finance accounting. (And you're not only wanting to do that, but have a fiscal year that's different from the calendar year? Yikes!) My understanding is that usually this process is done for businesses to be able to account for what their \"\"Retained Earnings\"\" and such are for investors and tax purposes; generally individuals wouldn't think of their finances in those terms. It's certainly not impossible, though. Gnucash, for example, implements a \"\"Closing Books\"\" feature, which is designed to create transactions for each Income and Expenses account into an end-of-year Equity Retained Earnings account. It doesn't do any sort of closing out of Assets or Liabilities, however. (And I'm not sure how that would make any sense, as you'd transfer it from your Asset to the End-of-year closing account, and then transfer it back as an Opening Balance for the next year?) If you want to keep each year completely separate, the page about Closing Books in the Gnucash Wiki mentions that one can create a separate Gnucash file per year by exporting the account tree from your existing file, then importing that tree and the balances into a new file. I expect that it makes it much more challenging to run reports across multiple years of data, though. While your question doesn't seem to be specific to Gnucash (I just mention it because it's the accounting tool I'm most familiar with), I'd expect that any accounting program would have similar functionality. I would, however, like to point out this section from the Gnucash manual: Note that closing the books in GnuCash is unnecessary. You do not need to zero out your income and expense accounts at the end of each financial period. GnuCash’s built-in reports automatically handle concepts like retained earnings between two different financial periods. In fact, closing the books reduces the usefulness of the standard reports because the reports don’t currently understand closing transactions. So from their point of view it simply looks like the net income or expense in each account for a given period was simply zero. And that's largely why I'm just not sure what your goals are. If you want to look at your transactions for a certain time, to \"\"just focus on the range of years I'm interested in for any given purpose\"\" as you say, then just go ahead and run the report you care about with those years as the dates. The idea of \"\"closing books\"\" comes from a time when you'd want to take your pile of paper ledgers and go put them in storage once you didn't need to refer to them regularly. Computers now have no challenges storing \"\"every account from the beginning of time\"\" at all, and you can filter out that data to focus on whatever you're looking for easily. If you don't want to look at the old data, just don't include them in your reports. I'm pretty sure that's the \"\"better way to keep the books manageable\"\".\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "636e89a10742d086814eda92bc6aaca3",
"text": "At the end of the year, the mutual fund company sends you a statement like any other investment and it has a bunch of boxes that you copy into your tax return software. Then you just check the box that says 'tax-exempt' and you're done.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aed869cd16df85e36dd933d8d121c8c",
"text": "Close-end funds just means there's a fixed number of shares available, so if you want to buy some you must purchase from other existing owners, typically through an exchange. Open-end funds mean the company providing the shares is still selling them, so you can buy them directly from the company. Some can also be traded on exchanges as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b4f0d060e1fbe089adecd08499cf3d3",
"text": "A government official said that the e-filing website had seen overloading due to last-minute filings. The last date for filing the income tax returns (ITRs) has been extended to 5th of August 2017 for the financial year 2016-17, the original deadline was 31st of July, 2017.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e27751dba88a72cd630751ffa52621",
"text": "I know some companies or entities have large incomes or expenses at certain times of the year, and like to close their books after these large events. For example where I work, the primary seasonal income comes after summer, so our fiscal year ends at the last days of October. This gives the accountants enough time to collect all the funds, reconcile whatever they have to, pay off whatever they have to and get working on a budget for the next year sooner than a calendar year would. There also might be tax reasons. To get all of your income at the beginning of your fiscal year, even if that is in the middle of the calendar year would allow a company to plan large deductible investments with more certainty. I am not to sure of the tax reasons.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36a2251f0e3038728874ef6f3cf0ad31",
"text": "My grandfather owned a small business, and I asked him that very question. His answer was that year-end closeout is very time-consuming, both before and after EOY (end of year), and that they didn't want to do all that around Christmas and New Year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3700ea152d1680761ab5001bc0390c48",
"text": "Reading IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) more closely, I see that this was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. Therefore, at the time of filing prior years, there was no way of knowing the final contingent payment would not be reached and thus the prior years were filed correctly and should not be amended. Those regulations go on to give an example of a sale with a stated maximum selling price where the maximum was not reached due to contingency and states that in such cases: When the maximum [payment] amount is subsequently reduced, the gross profit ratio will be recomputed with respect to payments received in or after the taxable year in which an event requiring reduction occurs. However, in this case, that would result in a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252 which Turbo Tax reports should be a non-negative number. Looking further in the regulations, I found an example which relates to bankruptcy and a resulting loss in a subsequent year: For 1992 A will report a loss of $5 million attributable to the sale, taken at the time determined to be appropriate under the rules generally applicable to worthless debts. Therefore, I used a gross profit ratio of zero on line 19 and entered a separate stock sale not reported on a 1099-B as a worthless stock on Form 8949 as a capital loss based upon the remaining basis in the stock sold in an installment sale. I also included an explanatory statement with my return to the IRS stating: In 2008, I entered into an installment sale of stock. The sale was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. The sales price did not reach the agreed upon maximum sales price due to some contingencies not being met. According to the IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) my basis in the stock remains at $500 in 2012 after the final payment. Rather than using a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252, I'm using a zero ratio and treating the remaining basis as a schedule-D loss similar to worthless stock since the sale is now complete and my remaining basis is no longer recoverable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de1c3721708671a47ab4ef8409f51c16",
"text": "If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin. What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance. The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2021896ab5fde00bf401811c12b52f10",
"text": "Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37336f4aa9142fc911bbc1bb0ac04cf6",
"text": "\"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \"\"sell to close\"\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \"\"sold to close\"\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1569f93563ab208396b84015c60d687d",
"text": "* Absolutely agree with /u/IsAnAlpaca * You /must/ not agree to this without seeing his balance sheet. * That means assets and liabilities, but also ask for the last 12 months' cash flow * Inability or unwillingness to provide any of those things is a HUGE no-go red flag.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ffce4eaf8955793d3399c6118abab23",
"text": "Yes this is possible. The most likely tool to use in this case would be a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). This is a line of credit for which the full amount is backed by home equity (difference between market and book prices). Most likely your financial institution will apply a factor to this collateral to account for various risks which will reduce the maximum amount that can be taken as a line of credit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_equity_line_of_credit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36fcccad5602fec5364f2c1f4e6d3235",
"text": "Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ddf5935ce37f66c96defd0182a0c28d",
"text": "\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38765067a397d9b0e341b2b3e44ba294",
"text": "\"Plenty! Following are just a few: For things like RESP and RRSP which have an \"\"end\"\" date; as you or your children age, you should be migrating to less speculative investments and more secure ones. When children are young, for example, you might be in a \"\"growth\"\" type fund. Later on, you would likely want to switch that to an \"\"income\"\" fund, which is also more conservative and less likely to lose principal. Are you getting the best benefit from your credit cards? Is there another card with benefits that you would get more \"\"back\"\" from using? Is that fee-based Air miles card worth it? Is cash-back better for you? If you have regular investment withdrawals, can you increase them? Do you like the plan they are going in to? Similarly look over any other long-term debt repayment. Student loans, car loans, mortgage. What is coming up this year, what is \"\"ending\"\". If, for example, car payment will end, how will you earmark that money, so it just does not disappear into general funds. While you could go over things like these more often, once a year should be plenty often to keep tabs and not obsess. Good Luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b727ae7b43228b83efcdc86a2ddfa0c7",
"text": "Looking at your dates, I think I see a pattern. It appears that your statement closing date is always 17 business days before the last business day of the month. For example, if you start at May 31 and start counting backwards, skipping Saturdays, Sundays, and May 30 (Memorial Day), you'll see that May 5 is 17 business days before May 31. I cannot explain why Bank of America would do this. If you ask them, let us know what they say. If it bothers you, find another bank. I do most of my banking (checking, savings, etc.) with a local credit union. Their statements end on the last day of the month, every month without fail. (Very nice, in my opinion.) I have two credit cards with nationally known banks, and although those statements end in the middle of the month, they are consistently on the same date every month. (One of them is on the 13th; the other date I can't recall right now.) You are right, a computer does the work, and your statement date should be able to fall on a weekend without trouble. Even when these were assembled by hand, the statement date could still be on a weekend, and they just wouldn't write it up until the following Monday. You should be able to find another bank or credit union that does this.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2846d37d3928156057787e492e220610
|
How much would it cost me to buy one gold futures contract on Comex?
|
[
{
"docid": "0d2e0573d0cc917b52c7b308c9e9f620",
"text": "When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6798b2dc3f9c4a3f181e781dc794fc76",
"text": "Brokers usually have this kind of information, you can take a look at interactive brokers for instance: http://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/contract_info/v3.6/index.php?action=Details&site=GEN&conid=90384435 You are interested in the initial margin which in this case is $6,075. So you need that amount to buy/sell 1 future. In the contract specification you see the contract is made for 100 ounces. At the current price ($1,800/oz), that would be a total of $180,000. It is equivalent to saying you are getting 30x leverage. If you buy 1 future and the price goes from $1,800 to $1,850, the contract would go from $180,000 to $185,000. You make $5,000 or a 82% return. I am pretty sure you can imagine what happens if the market goes against you. Futures are great! (when your timing is perfect).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61a93a2cdc0652ecf72d577d67b3b63",
"text": "The lot size is 100 troy ounce. See the contract specification at the same site; http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_contract_specifications.html So with the current price of around $1785, one lot would cost you around 178,500. There may be other sites that offer smaller lots you would need to check with your broker. if the price moves up by $500, you gain $50,000 for a lot. The margin required changes from time to time: Currently it's $3666, with a maintenance of $3332, so a drop of $3.34 per oz of gold will cause a margin call. You make or lose 100 times the per oz movement as there are 100oz in the contract you cited. There's also a broker fee analogous to the commission on a stock trade. The other option would be to buy a fund that invests in Gold, this will be more easier to buy and the lot sizes will be much less. I hope you jumped into this great opportunity. At the time, experts said gold would have a straight run to $5000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dad31ba2c5fb4acb8693713bdfde500",
"text": "In order to understand how much you might gain or lose from participating in the futures markets, it is important to first understand the different ways in which the slope of the futures markets can be described. In many of the futures markets there is a possibility of somebody buying a commodity at the spot price and selling a futures contract on it. In order to do this they need to hold the commodity in storage. Most commodities cost money to hold in storage, so the futures price will tend to be above the spot price for these commodities. In the case of stock index futures, the holder receives a potential benefit from holding the stocks in an index. If the futures market is upward sloping compared to the spot price, then it can be called normal. If the futures market is usually downward sloping compared to the spot price then it can be called inverted. If the futures market is high enough above the spot price so that more of the commodity gets stored for the future, then the market can be called in contango. If the futures market is below the point where the commodity can be profitably stored for the future, and the market can be called in backwardation. In many of these cases, there is an implicit cost that the buyer of a future pays in order to hold the contract for certainly time. Your question is how much money you make if the price of gold goes up by a specific amount, or how much money you lose if the price of gold goes down by the same specific amount. The problem is, you do not say whether it is the spot price or the futures price which goes up or down. In most cases it is assumed that the change in the futures price will be similar to the change in the spot price of gold. If the spot price of gold goes up by a small amount, then the futures price of gold will go up by a small amount as well. If the futures price of gold goes up by a small amount, this will also drive the spot price of gold up. Even for these small price changes, the expected futures price change in expected spot price change will not be exactly the same. For larger price changes, there will be more of a difference between the expected spot price change in expected future price change. If the price eventually goes up, then the cost of holding the contract will be subtracted from any future gains. If the price eventually goes down, then this holding cost should be added to the losses. If you bought the contract when it was above the spot price, the price will slowly drift toward the spot price, causing you this holding cost. If the price of gold does not change any from the current spot price, then all you are left with is this holding cost.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa44f765e5a2f38704d6cc8e004c6e7c",
"text": "Most of the gold prices at international markets are USD denominated. Hence the prices would be same in international markets where large players are buying and selling. However this does not mean that the prices to the individuals in local markets is same. The difference is due to multiple things like cost of physical delivery, warehousing, local taxation, conversion of Local currency to USD etc. So in essence the price of Gold is similar to price of Crude Oil. The price of Oil is more or less same on all the markets exchanges, though there is small difference this is because of the cost of delivery/shipment which is borne by the buyer. However the cost of Oil to retail individual varies from country to country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ce1cee0983831c85823c1166a154b4e",
"text": "\"In layman's terms, oil on the commodities market has a \"\"spot price\"\" and a \"\"future price\"\". The spot price is what the last guy paid to buy a barrel of oil right now (and thus a pretty good indicator of what you'll have to pay). The futures price is what the last guy paid for a \"\"futures contract\"\", where they agreed to buy a barrel of oil for $X at some point in the future. Futures contracts are a form of hedging; a futures contract is usually sold at a price somewhere between the current spot price and the true expected future spot price; the buyer saves money versus paying the spot price, while the seller still makes a profit. But, the buyer of a futures contract is basically betting that the spot price as of delivery will be higher, while the seller is betting it will be lower. Futures contracts are available for a wide variety of acceptable future dates, and form a curve when plotted on a graph that will trend in one direction or the other. Now, as Chad said, oil companies basically get their cut no matter what. Oil stocks are generally a good long-term bet. As far as the best short-term time to buy in to an oil stock, look for very short windows when the spot and near-future price of gasoline is trending downward but oil is still on the uptick. During those times, the oil companies are paying their existing (high) contracts for oil, but when the spot price is low it affects futures prices, which will affect the oil companies' margins. Day traders will see that, squawk \"\"the sky is falling\"\" and sell off, driving the price down temporarily. That's when you buy in. Pretty much the only other time an oil stock is a guaranteed win is when the entire market takes a swan dive and then bottoms out. Oil has such a built-in demand, for the foreseeable future, that regardless of how bad it gets you WILL make money on an oil stock. So, when the entire market's in a panic and everyone's heading for gold, T-debt etc, buy the major oil stocks across the spectrum. Even if one stock tanks, chances are really good that another company will see that and offer a buyout, jacking the bought company's stock (which you then sell and reinvest the cash into the buying company, which will have taken a hit on the news due to the huge drop in working capital). Of course, the one thing to watch for in the headlines is any news that renewables have become much more attractive than oil. You wait; in the next few decades some enterprising individual will invent a super-efficient solar cell that provides all the power a real, practical car will ever need, and that is simultaneously integrated into wind farms making oil/gas plants passe. When that happens oil will be a thing of the past.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74828bede8859a500467a1ed38b291cd",
"text": "December, 8, 2011 ( 01:30 pm) :- Gold & Silver good support by the investors who are keep maintaining their buy position in MCX & Comex. But spot traders has sold 1000 kg Silver on Wednesday. Apart from this Silver maintaining their support above $ 32 & but also facing some resistance at $ 33.20. If today $ 33.20, Silver able to trade above that level than we can fore see their prices up to $ 34 - 35 in short term but if all problems are sowed after the today meet. Gold trend today totally bullish, If they trade above $ 1740 & Rs 29250 in MCX, We can for see Gold prices up to $ 1760 - $ 1780 in Comex & Rs 29500 - Rs 29700 in MCX.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea6800045e771f331e32666416c65c19",
"text": "Unless you have the storage and transportation facilities for it, or can come up with the money needed to rent or build those, no -- or not in any significant quantity. Buying oil futures is essentially an on-paper version of the same bet. Futures prices are already taking into account both expectations about price changes and the fact that there's cash tied up until they come due, but storage costs also adjust to follow those expectations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab6cc8d9826ecf75e8add750017c25d1",
"text": "\"Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't assume that you know more than the market does. The probability of gold prices rising again in the near future is already \"\"priced in\"\" as it were. Unless you are privy to some reliable information that no one else knows (given that you are asking here, I'm guessing not), stay away. Invest in a globally diversified low cost portfolio of primarily stocks and bonds and don't try to predict the future. Also I would kill for a 4.5% interest rate on my savings. In the USA, 1% is on the high side of what you can get right now. What is inflation like over there?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37746c35a5215dfe0fce2b7fab17a074",
"text": "I use futures options as a sort of hedge to an underwater position that I want to hold onto. If I am short at 3900 on /NQ and it moves up 3910 then I can sell a put against my position. For example, I sell this month's 3850 put for 15.00. If the NQ continues up to 3920, I can probably buy back that put for ~12.00 and sell the 3860 for 15.00. Rinse and repeat if it keeps moving up. If then the NQ moves down to 3900 then my futures position will be up +10 where my futures options put position will only be down about -3 for a net of +7. I suppose you could also trade a futures option by itself instead of the future's contract if you didn't want to risk as much $ in a day trade. Keep in mind that price you see for a future's options relates to the underlying. For /NQ 1 point = $20 so if a 3850 put costs 15.00 that is really $300. ES (Sp 500 futures) 1 point = $50 so a 1900 put that costs 15.00 would really be $750.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1036b5a2d57545cec61d53dda57b458c",
"text": "On international stock exchanges, they trade Puts and Calls, typically also for currencies. If for example 1 NOK is worth 1 $ now, and you buy Calls for 10000 NOK at 1.05 $ each, and in a year the NOK is worth 1.20 $ (which is what you predict), you can execute the Call, meaning 'buying' the 10000 NOK for the contracted 1.05 $ and selling them for the market price of 1.20 $, netting you 12000 - 10500 = 1500 $. Converting those back to NOK would give you 1250 NOK. Considering that those Calls might cost you maybe 300 NOK, you made 950 NOK. Note that if your prediction is common knowledge, Calls will be appropriately priced (=expensive), and there is little to make on them. And note also that if you were wrong, your Calls are worth less than toilet paper, so you lost the complete 300 NOK you paid for them. [all numbers are completely made up, for illustration purposes] You can make the whole thing easier if you define the raise of the NOK against a specific currency, for example $ or EUR. If you can, you can instead buy Puts for that currency, and you save yourself converting the money twice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "184b192142a08e69ff99c90145a0ef1a",
"text": "You're missing the cost-of-carry aspect: The cost of carry or carrying charge is the cost of storing a physical commodity, such as grain or metals, over a period of time. The carrying charge includes insurance, storage and interest on the invested funds as well as other incidental costs. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of the funds necessary to buy the instrument. So in a nutshell, you'd have to store the gold (safely), invest your money now, i.e. you're missing out on interests the money could have earned until the futures delivery date. Well and on top of that you need to get the gold shipped to London or wherever the agreed delivery place is. Edit: Forgot to mention that of course there are arbitrageurs that make sure the futures and spot market prices don't diverge. So the idea isn't that bad as I might have made it sound but being in the arbitrage business myself I should disclaim that profits are small and arbitraging is highly automated, so before you spot a $1 profit somewhere between any two contracts, you can be quite sure it's been taken by an arbitrageur already.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37e4a50d30b9b0df113973cbb7a4e610",
"text": "The other answer covers the mechanics of how to buy/sell a future contract. You seem however to be under the impression that you can buy the contract at 1,581.90 today and sell at 1,588.85 on expiry date if the index does not move. This is true but there are two important caveats: In other words, it is not the case that your chance of making money by buying that contract is more than 50%...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed60840adabb35f50fbe3ecac6904235",
"text": "\"What you're looking for are either FX Forwards or FX Futures. These products are traded differently but they are basically the same thing -- agreements to deliver currency at a defined exchange rate at a future time. Almost every large venue or bank will transact forwards, when the counterparty (you or your broker) has sufficient trust and credit for the settlement risk, but the typical duration is less than a year though some will do a single-digit multi-year forward on a custom basis. Then again, all forwards are considered custom contracts. You'll also need to know that forwards are done on currency pairs, so you'll need to pick the currency to pair your NOK against. Most likely you'll want EUR/NOK simply for the larger liquidity of that pair over other possible pairs. A quote on a forward will usually just be known by the standard currency pair ticker with a settlement date different from spot. E.g. \"\"EUR/NOK 12M\"\" for the 12 month settlement. Futures, on the other hand, are exchange traded and more standardized. The vast majority through the CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange). Your broker will need access to one of these exchanges and you simply need to \"\"qualify\"\" for futures trading (process depends on your broker). Futures generally have highest liquidity for the next \"\"IMM\"\" expiration (quarterly expiration on well known standard dates), but I believe they're defined for more years out than forwards. At one FX desk I've knowledge of, they had 6 years worth of quarterly expirations in their system at any one time. Futures are generally known by a ticker composed of a \"\"globex\"\" or \"\"cme\"\" code for the currency concatenated with another code representing the expiration. For example, \"\"NOKH6\"\" is 'NOK' for Norwegian Krone, 'H' for March, and '6' for the nearest future date's year that ends in '6' (i.e. 2016). Note that you'll be legally liable to deliver the contracted size of Krone if you hold through expiration! So the common trade is to hold the future, and net out just before expiration when the price more accurately reflects the current spot market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2865984a64db25a71c7b3f2c57f1afc5",
"text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a43b96a974577a49b2762736aabffc13",
"text": "\"As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com \"\"Real\"\" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings. That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year. Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit. This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%. If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money. If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400. If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate. Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed. Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal. Also there is often noisy jitter in the price. The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery. Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold. To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc1c0fc5cf69b8f5f14f16e716ab63a4",
"text": "There are 2 schools of thought in determining the price of a future contract in a day prior to expiration. The cost of carry model, states that the price of a future contract today is the spot price plus the cost of carrying the underlying asset until expiration minus the return that can be obtained from carrying the underlying asset. FuturePrice = SpotPrice + (CarryCost - CarryReturn) The expectancy model, states that the price of the futures contract depends on the expectation about the spot market's price in the future. In this case, the price of the future contract will diverge from the spot price depending on how much the price is expected to rise or fall before expiration. A few glossary terms: cost of carry For physical commodities such as grains and metals, the cost of storage space, insurance, and finance charges incurred by holding a physical commodity. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of funds necessary to buy the instrument. Also referred to as carrying charge. spot price The price at which a physical commodity for immediate delivery is selling at a given time and place. The cash price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9948929aaf617dfbf4968b14dc626dc",
"text": "The papers you would need to buy are called 'futures', and they give you the right to buy (or sell) a certain amount of oil at a certain location (some large harbor typically), for a certain price, on a certain day. You can typically sell these futures anytime (if you find someone that buys them), and depending on the direction you bought, you will make or lose money according to oil rice changes - if you have the future to get oil for 50 $, and the market price is 60, this paper is obviously worth 10 $. Note that you will have to sell the future at some day before it runs out, or you get real oil in some harbor somewhere for it, which might not be very useful to you. As most traders don't want really any oil, that might happen automatically or by default, but you need to make sure of that. Note also that worst case you could lose a lot more money than you put in - if you buy a future to deliver oil for 50 $, and the oil price runs, you will have to procure the oil for new price, meaning pay the current price for it. There is no theoretical limit, so depending on what you trade, you could lose ten times or a thousand times what you invested. [I worded that without technical lingo so it is clear for beginners - this is the concept, not the full technical explanation]",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8666d8f65e4961d7f1269d9f29ec62b0
|
Given current market conditions, how / when should I invest a $200k inheritance?
|
[
{
"docid": "6913ee4ec4b8cc12d1a45e16e86dc931",
"text": "\"E) Spend a small amount of that money on getting advice from a paid financial planner. (Not a broker or someone offering you \"\"free\"\" advice; their recommendations may be biased toward what makes them the most money). A good financial planner will talk to you about your plans and expectations both short and long term, and about your risk tolerance (would a drop in value panic you even if you know it's likely to recover and average out in the long run, that sort of thing), and about how much time and effort you want to put into actively managing your portfolio. From those answers, they will generate an initial proposed plan, which will be tested against simulations of the stock market to make sure it holds up. Typically they'll do about 100 passes over the plan to get a sense of its probable risk versus growth-potential versus volatility, and tweak the plan until the normal volatility is within the range you've said you're comfortable with while trying to produce the best return with the least risk. This may not be a perfect plan for you -- but at the very least it will be an excellent starting point until you decide (if you ever do decide) that you've learned enough about investing that you want to do something different with the money. It's likely to be better advice than you'll get here simply because they can and will take the time to understand your specific needs rather than offering generalities because we're trying to write something that applies to many people, all of whom have different goals and time horizons and financial intestinal fortitude. As far as a house goes: Making the mistake of thinking of a house as an investment is a large part of the mindset that caused the Great Recession. Property can be an investment (or a business) or it can be something you're living in; never make the mistake of putting it in both categories at once. The time to buy a house is when you want a house, find a house you like in a neighborhood you like, expect not to move out of it for at least five years, can afford to put at least 20% down payment, and can afford the ongoing costs. Owning your home is not more grown-up, or necessarily financially advantageous even with the tax break, or in any other way required until and unless you will enjoy owning your home. (I bought at age 50ish, because I wanted a place around the corner from some of my best friends, because I wanted better noise isolation from my neighbors, because I wanted a garden, because I wanted to do some things that almost any landlord would object to, and because I'm handy enough that I can do a lot of the routine maintenance myself and enjoy doing it -- buy a house, get a free set of hobbies if you're into that. And part of the reason I could afford this house, and the changes that I've made to it, was that renting had allowed me to put more money into investments. My only regret is that I didn't realise how dumb it was not to max out my 401(k) match until I'd been with the company for a decade ... that's free money I left on the table.)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a8136e0b36283542987257724559274e",
"text": "\"The standard interpretation of \"\"can I afford to retire\"\" is \"\"can I live on just the income from my savings, never touching the principal.\"\" To estimate that, you need to make reasonable guesses about the return you expect, the rate of inflation, your real costs -- remember to allow for medical emergencies, major house repairs, and the like when determining you average needs, not to mention taxes if this isn't all tax-sheltered! -- and then build in a safety factor. You said liquid assets, and that's correct; you don't want to be forced into a reverse mortgage by anything short of a disaster. An old rule of thumb was that -- properly invested -- you could expect about 4% real return after subtracting inflation. That may or may not still be correct, but it makes an easy starting point. If we take your number of $50k/year (today's dollars) and assume you've included all the tax and contingency amounts, that means your nest egg needs to be 50k/.04, or $1,250,000. (I'm figuring I need at least $1.8M liquid assets to retire.) The $1.5M you gave would, under this set of assumptions, allow drawing up to $60k/year, which gives you some hope that your holdings would mot just maintain themselves but grow, giving you additional buffer against emergencies later. Having said that: some folks have suggested that, given what the market is currently doing, it might be wiser to assume smaller average returns. Or you may make different assumptions about inflation, or want a larger emergency buffer. That's all judgement calls, based on your best guesses about the economy in general and your investments in particular. A good financial advisor (not a broker) will have access to better tools for exploring this, using techniques like monte-carlo simulation to try to estimate both best and worst cases, and can thus give you a somewhat more reliable answer than this rule-of-thumb approach. But that's still probabilities, not promises. Another way to test it: Find out how much an insurance company would want as the price of an open-ended inflation-adjusted $50k-a-year annuity. Making these estimates is their business; if they can't make a good guess, nobody can. Admittedly they're also factoring the odds of your dying early into the mix, but on the other hand they're also planning on making a profit from the deal, so their number might be a reasonable one for \"\"self-insuring\"\" too. Or might not. Or you might decide that it's worth buying an annuity for part or all of this, paying them to absorb the risk. In the end, \"\"ya pays yer money and takes yer cherce.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9838f030c43ae7ef9cb5567a6f0bf48",
"text": "My understanding is that when you die, the stocks are sold and then the money is given to the beneficiary or the stock is repurchased in the beneficiaries name. This is wrong, and the conclusion you draw from michael's otherwise correct answer follows your false assumption. You seem to understand the Estate Tax federal threshold. Jersey would have its own, and I have no idea how it works there. If the decedent happened to trade in the tax year prior to passing, normal tax rules apply. Now, if the executor chooses to sell off and liquidate the estate to cash, there's no further taxable gain, a $5M portfolio can have millions in long term gain, but the step up basis pretty much negates all of it. If that's the case, the beneficiaries aren't likely to repurchase those shares, in fact, they might not even know what the list of stocks was, unless they sifted through the asset list. But, that sale was unnecessary, assets can be divvied up and distributed in-kind, each beneficiary getting their fraction of the number of shares of each stock. And then your share of the $5M has a stepped up basis, meaning if you sell that day, your gains are near zero. You might owe a few dollars for whatever the share move in the time passing between the step up date and date you sell. I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding. By the way, the IRS is just an intermediary. It's congress that writes the laws, including the tangled web of tax code. The IRS is the moral equivalent of a great customer service team working for a company we don't care for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15494e74be9bc86dd2485cbda946271b",
"text": "I would definitely recommend putting some of this in an IRA. You can't put all $30K in an IRA immediately though, as the contribution limit is $5500/year for 2014, but until April 15 you can still contribute $5500 for 2013 as well. At your income level I would absolutely recommend a Roth IRA, as your income will very likely be higher in retirement, given that your income will almost certainly rise after you get your Ph.D. Your suggested asset allocation (70% stocks, 30% bonds) sounds appropriate; if anything you might want to go even higher on stocks assuming you won't mind seeing the value drop significantly. If you don't want to put a lot of energy into investment choices, I suggest a target retirement date fund. As far as I am aware, Vanguard offers the lowest expenses for these types of funds, e.g. this 2050 fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df0515b8e229a35936b1f259d49b8ea3",
"text": "I like this option, rather than exposing all 600k to market risk, I'd think of paying off the mortgage as a way to diversify my portfolio. Expose 400k to market risk, and get a guaranteed 3.75% return on that 200k (in essence). Then you can invest the money you were putting towards your mortgage each month. The potential disadvantage, is that the extra 200k investment could earn significantly more than 3.75%, and you'd lose out on some money. Historically, the market beats 3.75%, and you'd come out ahead investing everything. There's no guarantee. You also don't have to keep your money invested, you can change your position down the road and pay off the house. I feel best about a paid off house, but I know that my sense of security carries opportunity cost. Up to you to decide how much risk you're willing to accept. Also, if you don't have an emergency fund, I'd set up that first and then go from there with investing/paying off house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "990d7cea7a0d872a8b50cca148e7d234",
"text": "\"This is a common and good game-plan to learn valuable life skills and build a supplemental income. Eventually, it could become a primary income, and your strategic risk is overall relatively low. If you are diligent and patient, you are likely to succeed, but at a rate that is so slow that the primary beneficiaries of your efforts may be your children and their children. Which is good! It is a bad gameplan for building an \"\"empire.\"\" Why? Because you are not the first person in your town with this idea. Probably not even the first person on the block. And among those people, some will be willing to take far more extravagant risks. Some will be better capitalized to begin with. Some will have institutional history with the market along with all the access and insider information that comes with it. As far as we know, you have none of that. Any market condition that yields a profit for you in this space, will yield a larger one for them. In a downturn, they will be able to absorb larger losses than you. So, if your approach is to build an empire, you need to take on a considerably riskier approach, engage with the market in a more direct and time-consuming way, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if those risks play out the wrong way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0a717cb3d03349eff74c42a58816337",
"text": "The standard advice is that stocks are all over the place, and bonds are stable. Not necessarily true. Magazines have to write for the lowest common denominator reader, so sometimes the advice given is fortune-cookie like. And like mbhunter pointed out, the advertisers influence the advice. When you read about the wonders of Index funds, and see a full page ad for Vanguard or the Nasdaq SPDR fund, you need to consider the motivation behind the advice. If I were you, I would take advantage of current market conditions and take some profits. Put as much as 20% in cash. If you're going to buy bonds, look for US Government or Municipal security bond funds for about 10% of your portfolio. You're not at an age where investment income matters, you're just looking for some safety, so look for bond funds or ETFs with low durations. Low duration protects your principal value against rate swings. The Vanguard GNMA fund is a good example. $100k is a great pot of money for building wealth, but it's a job that requires you to be active, informed and engaged. Plan on spending 4-8 hours a week researching your investments and looking for new opportunities. If you can't spend that time, think about getting a professional, fee-based advisor. Always keep cash so that you can take advantage of opportunities without creating a taxable event or make a rash decision to sell something because you're excited about a new opportunity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0421ab8d7a42901d7685e545c3551bd1",
"text": "\"Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10 percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: \"\"I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions or individuals.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61458cd28cd3bcf03264667e2ce9f79a",
"text": "The best advice I've heard regarding market conditions is: Buy into fear, and sell into greed. That is, get in when everyone is a bear and predicting economic collapse. Start selling when you hear stock picks at parties and family functions. That said. You are better off in the long term not letting emotion (of you or the market) control your investing decisions). Use dollar cost averaging to put a fixed amount in at fixed intervals and you will most likely end up better off for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4bfed0d60b7aad95ded1939b5bb5c18",
"text": "I like precious metals and real estate. For the OP's stated timeframe and the effects QE is having on precious metals, physical silver is not a recommended short term play. If you believe that silver prices will fall as QE is reduced, you may want to consider an ETF that shorts silver. As for real estate, there are a number of ways to generate profit within your time frame. These include: Purchase a rental property. If you can find something in the $120,000 range you can take a 20% mortgage, then refinance in 3 - 7 years and pull out the equity. If you truly do not need the cash to purchase your dream home, look for a rental property that pays all the bills plus a little bit for you and arrange a mortgage of 80%. Let your money earn money. When you are ready you can either keep the property as-is and let it generate income for you, or sell and put more than $100,000 into your dream home. Visit your local mortgage broker and ask if he does third-party or private lending. Ask about the process and if you feel comfortable with him, let him know you'd like to be a lender. He will then find deals and present them to you. You decide if you want to participate or not. Private lenders are sometimes used for bridge financing and the loan amortizations can be short (6 months - 5 years) and the rates can be significantly higher than regular bank mortgages. The caveat is that as a second-position mortgage, if the borrower goes bankrupt, you're not likely to get your principal back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61e08f0d238c2474a7eb648aac96c339",
"text": "\"TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK. According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London. That sounds like a terrible deal to me. I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks. For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.). If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to \"\"lose everything\"\" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: \"\"I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.\"\" Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold. In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend. Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money? In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment? If not, you will be speculating, not investing. Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing. I don't recommend speculating.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "348d5c009aaf87cb2c2f7769d92c96f2",
"text": "No one knows if the market is high right now. To know that you would need to compare it to the future, not the past. If you put all your money in right now, you run the risk of putting it in at what turns out to be a bad time. If you spread it out, you will for sure put some of it in at a bad time (either the stuff you put in now, or the stuff you put in later). The strategy that, on average, will make you the most money is to put everything in now. If your risk tolerance allows that (it sounds like it does) then I think going all in makes sense. There really aren't significant downsides to buying a ton at once. You aren't going to move the needle on a big Vanguard fund with that amount and there isn't a tax consequence or anything to buying. Of course, when you sell, you will need to pay capital gains tax on any gains, but that's a later chapter. The bigger consideration is to be smart right now about avoiding taxes. If your income is low, max out your Roth IRAs. If you need to you can later use that money for a house or you can pull the contribution part out at any time if you want without a penalty. Is a $50K buffer too much? Normally I would say yes, it's excessive. I have 5 rather expensive kids and I keep $20K in cash, which seems high, if anything. However, if you are unemployed or your income isn't covering your expenses, then keeping a larger pot in cash makes good sense until your cash flow firms up. Setting $50K or something close to that aside sounds a lot like something I would do in your shoes. BTW where are you finding a savings account that pays 2%?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a80cfd6ba7d8c3aa2416aa91d6c0e49d",
"text": "\"When I was in a similar situation (due to my stocks going up), I quit my job and decided that if I live somewhat frugally, I wouldn't have to work again (I haven't). But I fell victim to some scams, didn't invest wisely, and tried to play as a (minor) philantropist. Bad move. I still have enough money to live on, and want to buy a home of my own, but with the rise in real estate costs in ALL the \"\"good\"\" major cities my options are very limited. There is a LOT of good advice being given here; I wish someone had given me that kind of advice years ago. $1,200,000 sounds like a lot but it's not infinity. Side comment: I've seen lots of articles that claim to help you figure out how much money you need in retirement but why do they all start out by asking you \"\"how much money do you need in retirement?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9e2e5af3b25ea0472a59dbe5a50c385",
"text": "Here's a little different perspective. I'm not going to talk about the quality of the investment, the expected return, or any of the other things you normally talk about when evaluating investments. This is about family, and the most important thing here is the relationships. What you need to do here is look at the different possible scenarios and figure out how each of these would make you feel. Only you can evaluate this. For example, here are some questions to ask yourself: I know how I would answer these questions, but that wouldn't help you any. But the advice I would give you is, assuming you have this money to lose, and are also investing elsewhere, evaluate this solely on the basis of the effect on your family relationships. The only other piece of advice I would give you is to knock out that student loan and car loan debt as fast as you possibly can. Minimize your investments until that debt is gone, so you can get rid of it even faster.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8746b923f8b8481c9122f86915fac71",
"text": "Your reaction to bad news is the greatest risk. Are you going to panic and pull all your money out when the market falls 20%? It will. Someday it will. The question is, will you have the stomach to stay the course and keep your money invested when the sky is falling and everyone is screaming that things are definitely going to get worse? If not, the timing of when you invest will matter not at all. My advice: Go all in ASAP. Remember that you don't care where the market is in 2 years. You're in your mid 40's, you care where the market is in 20 years. And 20 years from now, when you're in your mid 60's, you'll be caring about where the market is even further into the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8458e6ebcc66911b291d37d15bc50a86",
"text": "To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8b7def461fce4f18ccf392596ed7efd0
|
Setting up auto-pay. Should I use my bank that holds mortage or my personal bank?
|
[
{
"docid": "19fa81d4f7fc0ca1253b7f0a44f2159c",
"text": "\"One factor to consider is timing. If you set up the automatic payments through the bank that holds the mortgage (I'll call them the \"\"receiving\"\" bank), they will typically record the transactions as occurring on the actual dates you've set up the automatic payments to occur on, which generally eliminates e.g. the risk of having late payments. By contrast, setting up auto-pay through your personal bank (the \"\"sending\"\" bank) usually amounts to, on the date you specify, your bank deducts the amount from your account and sends a check to the receiving bank (and many banks actually send this check by mail), which may result in the transaction not being credited to your mortgage until several business days later. A second consideration (and this may not be as likely to occur on a loan payment as with a utility or service) is the amount of the payment. When you set up your auto-pay through the sending bank, you explicitly instruct your bank as to the amount to send (also, if you don't have enough in your account, your bank may wait to send the bill payment until you do). This can be good if finances are tight, or if you just like having absolute control of the payment. The risk, though, is that if some circumstance increases the amount that you need to pay one month, you'll have to proactively adjust your auto-pay setting before it fires off. Whereas, if you've set the auto-pay up through the receiving bank, they would most likely submit the transaction to your bank for the higher amount automatically. I'll give an example based on something I saw fairly often when I worked for Dish Network on recovery (customers in early disconnect, the goal being to take a payment and restore service). If you had set up auto-pay through your bank based on your package price, and then the price increased by $2/month, you might not notice at first (your service stays on, and your bill doesn't have any red stamps on it), but the difference will slowly add up until it exceeds a full month's payment, at which point a late fee starts being assessed. From there, it quickly snowballs until the service is turned off. Whereas if you had set that auto-pay up through the provider, when the rate increased, they would simply submit an EFT for the new, higher amount to your bank. On the opposite side of the spectrum: if you've set up the auto-pay through the sending bank, and you're not paying close enough attention when you finally pay off the mortgage, you might accidentally overpay by either making an extra payment or because the final payment is smaller than the rest. Then you'd have to wait a few days (or weeks?) for the receiving bank to issue a refund, leaving those funds unavailable to you in the interim. For these reasons, I personally prefer to always set up automatic payments through the receiving bank, rather than the sending bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a74ce917b8bba32d778ccb34fe977c9",
"text": "Depending on your bank you may receive an ACH discount for doing automatic withdrawals from a deposit account at that bank. Now, this depends on your bank and you need to do independent research on that topic. As far as dictating what your extra money goes towards each month (early payments, principal payments, interest payments) you need to discuss that with your bank. I'm sure it's not too difficult to find. In my experience most banks, so long as you didn't sign a contract on your mortgage where you're penalized for sending additional money, will apply extra money toward early payments, and not principal. I would suggest calling them. I know for my student loans I have to send a detailed list of my loans and in what order I want my extra payments toward each, otherwise it will be considered an early payment, or it will be spread evenly among them all.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "acc09c5d98f893e55f4d2b9ce0497689",
"text": "Disclosure: I work for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. This is normal. The bank is giving you a discount on the interest rate in exchange for the automatic payments. Unfortunately, the bank has the power here; they have your mortgage, and they have the right to call your loan in full at any time, and foreclose on your house if you don't pony up. It's okay to not like being pushed around, but you need to know when to hold'em and when to fold'em, and your facing a royal flush with pair of 4s.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26d1fa0919c5d0cd9e23e44fd94ee05e",
"text": "yeah, i get that it's not optional. just sucks that nothing has changed substantially since i closed on the loan 11 months ago (same PMI, same HO, essentially the same property taxes) and now i have to pay more. seems like the closing docs could have taken into account timing of those payments so that i primed the pump with enough from the beginning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f20c565456d604db8ccfa9d1dbcb0f82",
"text": "As a former banker, the title of the car will be assigned to the loan account holder(s) because legally, he/she/they are responsible for payments. I've never heard of any case where the car title differs from the loan account holder(s). Throughout my career in the bank, I've come across quite a number of parents who did the same for their children and the car title was always assigned to the loan account holder's name. You do have a choice of applying for a joint loan with one of your parents unless if you are concerned about what your credit score might be. Once the loan has been paid off, the title could be changed to your name from your parents of course. As for insurance, there are numerous options where the insurance would cover all drivers of the car however at a slightly higher price like you've mentioned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fb04bb2fa978a172aa3069d185e839f",
"text": "There is no difference in safety form the perspective of the bank failing, due to FDIC/NCUA insurance. However, there is a practical issue that should be considered, if you allow payments to be automatically withdrawn from your checking account In the case of an error, all of you money may be unavailable until the error is resolved, which could be days or weeks. By having two accounts, this possibility may be reduced. It isn't a difference between checking and savings, but a benefit of having two accounts. Note that if both accounts are at the same bank, hey make take money from other accounts to cover the shortfall. That said, I've done this for years and have never had a problem. Also, I have two accounts, one at a local credit union with just enough kept in it to cover any payments, and another online account that has the rest of my savings. I can easily transfer funds between the two accounts in a couple days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e66a88b7cf69b7bdd8106cc680cc8d92",
"text": "\"I would suggest opening a bank account that you use to accept deposits only, and then get a system set up where it automatically transfers the money over to your main account. If not instantly it could transfer the money hourly or daily. Of course you would have to pay a premium for this \"\"peace of mind\"\" ;)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60d54be3b63010282dc4e0772eaea452",
"text": "I would ignore the bank completely when they use gross income. Decide, based upon your current living situation, what your MAX limit on a monthly payment is. Then from that determine the size and cost of the house you can buy. My husband and I decided on a $2000 monthly payment max, but also agreed $1500 was more reasonable. When using those numbers in the calculators it is way less than when using gross income. When we used our gross pay the calculators all said we could afford double what we were looking for. Since they don't know what our take home pay is (after all the deductions including 401k, healthcare, etc), the estimates on gross income are way higher than what we can comfortably afford. Set a budget based on your current living situation and what you want your future to look like. Do you want to scrimp and coupon clip or would you rather live comfortably in a smaller home? Do the online calculators based on take home pay and on gross pay to get a sense of the range you could be looking at.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81b2ae9f0162027b20065683189591a2",
"text": "Option three is our preferred method, and we never argue about money. First we did a budget to work out ALL monthly joint out-goings (mortgage, bills, grocery etc). Then we each agreed who would pay what into the joint or household account - at the moment, I earn more than my wife, so I pay more, but we sit down every three or four months, to see if it needs adjusting. This way, we each keep our own individual accounts private, but pay what is necessary into the household account. We also set up a joint savings account; often at the end of the month, we'll have a little extra left in the household acount, and we siphon that off into joint savings to cover future unexpected costs - looks like our tumble dryer is on its last spin cycle at the moment, for example, and the joint savings account will be able to cover the cost of replacement. it all takes a bit of administration - but, as I say, we've never had a cross word about money, so the system seems to work.",
"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": "ead8374a12f4653b276207257e104e35",
"text": "\"I use online banking as much as possible and I think it may help you get closer to your goal. I see you want to know where the money goes and save time so it should work for you like it did for me. I used to charge everything or write checks and then pay a big visa bill. My problem was I never knew exactly how much I spent because neither Visa or check writing are record systems. They just generate transactions records. I made it a goal use online banking to match my spending to the available cash and ended up ok usually 9-10 months out of the year. I started with direct deposit of my paycheck. Each Saturday, I sit down and within a half hour, I've paid the bills for the week and know where I stand for the following week. Any new bill that comes in, I add it to online banking even if it's not a recurring expense. I also pull down cash from the ATM but just enough to allow me to do what I have to do. If it's more than $30 or $40 bucks, I use the debit card so that expense goes right to the online bank statement. My monthly bank statement gives me a single report with everything listed. Mortgage, utilities, car payment, cable bill, phone bill, insurance, newspaper, etc... It does not record these transactions in generic categories; they actually say Verizon or Comcast or Shop Rite. I found this serves as the only report I need to see what's happening with my budget. It may take a while to change to a plan like this one. but you'll now have a system that shows you in a single place where the money goes. Move all bills that are \"\"auto-pay\"\" to the online system and watch your Visa bill go down. The invested time is likely what you're doing now writing checks. Hope this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f03c1b110541156fe89f80e845b9001",
"text": "When setting these up for my own bill payment, I was surprised, after the fact, to see that a couple I thought would be a mailed check were actually instant transfers, and for others, vice versa. On line banking typically asks you for the due date and they handle from there. If you need this detail before the payment, I'd ask the bank. Else, it's easy to see after the fact for a given payee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed4d9e1cdd86fd64dea1691920e253a2",
"text": "Banks have electronic money counters so the order really doesn't matter. When I make a cash deposit that's large, I usually just put it in an envelope and hand it over.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fa6e938d11ef82ce12ac841a01fabd6",
"text": "\"From the bank's perspective, they are offering a service and within their rights to charge appropriately for that service. Depending on the size of their operation, they may have considerable overhead costs that they need to recoup one way or another to continue operating (profitably, they hope). Traditionally, banks would encourage you to save with them by offering interest growth on your deposits. Meanwhile they would invest your (and all of their customer's) funds in securities or loans to other patrons that they anticipate will generate income for them at a faster rate than the interest they pay back to you. These days however, this overly simplified model is relatively insignificant in consumer banking. Instead, they've found they can make a lot more profit by simply charging fees for the handling of your funds, and when they want to loan money to consumers they just borrow from a central bank. What this means is that the size of your balance (unless abnormally huge) is of little interest to a branch manager - it doesn't generate revenue for them much faster than a tiny balance with the same number of transactions would. To put it simply, they can live without you, and your threatening to leave, even if you follow through, is barely going to do anything to their bottom line. They will let you. If you DO have an abnormally huge balance, and it's all in a simple checking or savings account, then it might make them pause for thought. But if that's true then frankly you're doing banking wrong and should move those funds somewhere where they can work harder for you in terms of growth. They might even suggest so themselves and direct you to one of their own \"\"personal wealth managers\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ded88302704edac9ccacb87a3e81e195",
"text": "Personally, I keep two regular checking accounts at different banks. One gets a direct deposit totaling the sum of my regular monthly bills and a prorated provision for longer term regular bills like semi-annual car insurance premiums. I leave a buffer in the account to account for the odd expensive electrical bill or rate increase or whatever. One gets a direct deposit of the rest which I then allocate to savings and spending. It makes sense to me to separate off regular planned expenses (rent/mortgage, utility bills, insurance premiums) from spending money because it lets me put the basics of my life on autopilot. An added benefit is I have a failover checking account in the event something happens to one of them. I don't keep significant amounts of money in either account and don't give transfer access to the savings accounts that store the bulk of my money. I wear a tinfoil hat when it comes to automatic bank transfers and account access... It doesn't make sense to me to keep deposits separate from spending, it makes less sense to me to spend off of a savings account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ec9ed07eed727fa6ea5c2ba8cd7ad1f",
"text": "My wife and I set up a shared bank account. We knew the monthly costs of the mortgage and estimated the cost of utilities. Each month, we transferred enough to cover these, plus about 20% so we could make an extra mortgage payment each year and build up an emergency fund, and did so using automatic transactions. Other shared expenses such as groceries, we handled on an ad-hoc basis, settling up every month or three. We initially just split everything 50-50 because we both earned roughly the same income. When that changed, we ended up going with a 60-40 split. We maintained our separate bank accounts, though this may have changed in the future. A system like this may work for you, or may at least provide a starting point for a discussion. And I do strongly advise having a frank and open discussion on these points. Dealing with money can be tricky in the bounds of a marriage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d3019a42269863ef899613e5fc9e06c4
|
Real estate agent best practice
|
[
{
"docid": "ef65e9b7f76d83e45c8b535b3e01959c",
"text": "This question is a bit off-topic, might be better moved to another SE site. But I'll answer anyway: Sounds like the problem is that your wife is potentially being taken advantage of by people who may not really be prospects. Keep in mind no one can take advantage of you without your permission. There are also some things you and she can do to reduce the amount of wasted time while minimizing the risk of giving up on a potential sale. Qualify your leads: make sure these potential clients are really, truly potential customers. Ask whatever questions you have to ask in order to qualify them as real house hunters. It doesn't have to be binary: you can have hot leads ready to buy now, and lukewarm leads who may not buy for 12 months or more. Treat each one accordingly. Set limits: a lukewarm lead is not allowed to call you 20 times a day. Answer their calls just once per day. By answering the phone every time they call you are training them to call as often as they like! If you only return calls once per day they'll quickly learn to save their questions up and ask them all at once. Showing 10 houses sounds a bit silly. How can you remember any details after seeing 10 houses? By asking more questions and learning more about what your clients want in a house, you can reduce the footwork. Me, I'd flat out limit it to three houses per outing, and I wouldn't even hesitate to tell the client why. I think all these things will come in time. Like any new venture, she needs some experience to learn how to maximize her efficiency and effectiveness. Keep in mind it's better to have the phone ringing too much than not at all!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a922831908a57f486af088f59de107d6",
"text": "\"There are people that make up a small segment of the population that have an unsatisfied need to see the insides of other people's houses. There's also a segment of the population that don't quite understand the \"\"big picture\"\" of how service professions work... for example, any group of friends going into a restaurant and requesting a table and sitting at it for over an hour, but feel they don't need to leave a tip because they only ordered espressos or shared a desert. Sure, you're paying for the service of a service professional, but it should also include their time and resources you consume outside of the actual service but many don't have that perspective. Why should I pay you if you aren't providing your actual \"\"service\"\" to me even though I'm consuming your time and resources that would be earning you your expected salary otherwise, is their justification. So when you encounter an individual from both small segments of the population mentioned above, the result is the problem your wife faces with perspective buyers. I look at the Agent / Buyer relationship from a different perspective when I encounter these no-harm intended individuals. I don't see it as the buyer is hiring the agent... for if that was the case, a contract of some sorts would be involved detailing the menu of services provided by the agent with associated costs, the buyer would make selections from the menu, pay the costs, and services rendered. but that's not how it works. so its important to understand the perspective of the agent looking to hire the buyer.. you're not paying the buyer to be your client, but you are looking to select the prospective buyer that's going to generate cash flow. In a commissions based work force that is also your main source of income, you have to look at prospective clients as that.. simply prospects..but who are a vital component of your salary. So when allocating your time and resources, especially if you're dealing with several prospects, you literally have to turn away these cold leads who are just looking for design tips and paint color pattern suggestions and you as their escort. If I was in the shoe-making business, i wouldn't hire a walk-in, give him access to materials and work space with the assumption that if its to his liking, it'll generate profit towards my salary needs, if the only thing he's interested in doing is looking around at all the other shoes, a behavior that requires my presence, time, and resources. You almost can't even justify it as \"\"looking at it as possible income in the future\"\" if it's costing you revenue now, whether its in the form of having to neglect actual buyers or you could be investing your time in things that would impact salary needs, such as advance course work (attending optional trainings offered by your broker), or investing time finding more serious leads.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "17a97468d02ef23f8242fabd8c3ad769",
"text": "\"I very much agree with what @Grade 'Eh' Bacon said about townhouses, but wanted to add a bit about HOA's, renting after moving on, and appreciation: HOA's HOA's can be restrictive, but they can also help protect property values, not all HOA's are created equal, some mean you have zero exterior maintenance, some don't. You'll be able to review the HOA financials to see where the money goes (and if they have healthy reserves). You'll see how much they spend on administration, I think ~10% is typical, and administration can be offset by the savings associated with doing everything in bulk. A well-run HOA should actually save you money over paying for all the things separately, but many people are happy to do some things themselves rather than pay for it, and would come out ahead if they didn't have an HOA. And of course, not all HOA's are well-run. Just do your best to get informed Transitioning to Rental If you are interested in trying your hand being a landlord after living there for a while, a townhouse typically exposes you to less rental risk than a single-family home, because the cost is typically lower and if the HOA maintains everything outside the house then you don't have to worry as much about tenants keeping a lawn in good shape, for example. Appreciation Appreciation varies wildly by market, some research by Trulia suggests in general condo's have outperformed single-family houses over the last 5 years by 10.5%. The same article notes that others disagree with Trulia's assessment and put condo's below single-family houses by 1.3% annually. My first townhouse has appreciated 41% over the last 3 years, while houses in the area are closer to 30% over the same period, but I believe that's a function of my local market more than a nationwide trend. I wouldn't plan around any appreciation forecasts. Source: Condos may be appreciating faster than single-family houses My adviceYou have to do your research on each potential property regardless of whether it's a condo/townhouse/single-family to find out what restrictions there are and what services are provided by the HOA (if any), your agent should be provided with most of the pertinent info, and you may not get to see HOA financials until you're under contract. Most importantly in my view, I wouldn't buy anywhere near the top of your budget. Being \"\"house-poor\"\" is no fun and will limit your options, don't count on appreciation or better income in the future to justify stretching yourself thin in the short-term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c930926902e10d8b135a90ddfbcc9a",
"text": "THANK YOU so much! That is exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately I'm goign to be really busy for 7 days but I'd love to tear through some of this material and ask you some questions if you don't mind. What do you do for a living now? Still in real estate? Did you go toward the brokerage side or are you still consulting? What's the atmosphere/day-to-day like?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6bdba3040528635a47946d6d4f18927",
"text": "Sounds like the seminar is about using OPM (other people's money), which means you're going to have to find not just real estate, but investors. Those investors are going to need a business plan, contracts, and a lot of work from you to provide as much equity as possible before the property is sold. If you're serious about Real Estate, I suggest finding the most successful broker/agent you can, buying them a beer, glass of wine, or cup of coffee, and picking their brain about it. It'll be cheaper then a scam seminar.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da98a43ea060fc567e309d611f5d70a3",
"text": "I pulled it off. I did my own searching and so took a lot of load off my agent. As a result my agent agreed to work for 1% commission instead of the normal 3%. Got seller's agent to agree to take 4% instead of 6% and pay my agent the 1%. Seller and I pocketed the difference (I forget how exactly the split went). As it happened, my agent only had to process offers on two houses (one I got outbid on and one I got to buy).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83ab38287c21b4283e6a336cae5294fb",
"text": "Hi I am assuming you are doing this in the US? I run a social media / content marketing agency in the UK, Some of our very first clients were real estate agents, the idea we had was to market properties through Facebook using interior and exterior video shots to commercial music, This took off with some estate agents and not so much with others, My biggest piece of advice find a chain and start there that way you will get a hell of a lot of recognition by the smaller firms, You need to find a realistic price point for your clients that is measurable on the ROI and ultimately pays for your lifestyle. I started at £200 which is $257 dollars - arguably very underpriced but it gave me the opportunity to work with a cluster of people, I even went to the extreme of offering free work so I could get work for the portfolio! In terms of who to contact and how to find them.. enter Linkedin.com your new best friend - connect with real estate developers, buyers, owners you name it then informally introduce yourself and ask when they are free for a coffee. Post an article about why video and drone footage is the next big thing for real estate, don't be afraid to ask for the business at the end of the day you are providing cold hard value. I've always tried to get retainer deals with clients in the real estate sector but to achieve this you have to talk to the big boys and not independent firms. I could be wrong though I haven't done business with a lot of people in the states so definitely something to keep in mind. A good lot of this business idea is trial and error but I agree with it 100% just go and do basically, Hope this helps - I am happy to show you some of my work if you want to shoot me over a private message!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0255b03e9b26ac7886bc7db1ca7075a",
"text": "\"I agree with Joe Taxpayer that a lot of details are missing to really evaluate it as an investment... for context, I own a few investment properties including a 'small' 10+ unit apartment complex. My answer might be more than you really want/need, (it kind of turned into Real Estate Investing 101), but to be fair you're really asking 3 different questions here: your headline asks \"\"how effective are Condo/Hotel developments as investments?\"\" An answer to that is... sometimes, very. These are a way for you-the investor-to get higher rents per sq. ft. as an owner, and for the hotel to limit its risks and access additional development funding. By your description, it sounds like this particular company is taking a substantial cut of rents. I don't know this property segment specifically, but I can give you my insight for longer-term apartment rentals... the numbers are the same at heart. The other two questions you're implying are \"\"How effective is THIS condo/hotel development?\"\" and \"\"Should you buy into it?\"\" If you have the funds and the financial wherewithal to honestly consider this, then I am sure that you don't need your hand held for the investment pros/cons warnings of the last question. But let me give you some of my insight as far as the way to evaluate an investment property, and a few other questions you might ask yourself before you make the decision to buy or perhaps to invest somewhere else. The finance side of real estate can be simple, or complicated. It sounds like you have a good start evaluating it, but here's what I would do: Start with figuring out how much revenue you will actually 'see': Gross Potential Income: 365 days x Average Rent for the Room = GPI (minus) Vacancy... you'll have to figure this out... you'll actually do the math as (Vacancy Rate %) x GPI (equals) Effective Potential Income = EPI Then find out how much you will actually pocket at the end of the day as operating income: Take EPI (minus) Operating expenses ... Utilities ... Maintenace ... HOA ... Marketing if you do this yourself (minus) Management Expenses ... 40% of EPI ... any other 'fees' they may charge if you manage it yourself. ... Extra tax help? (minus) Debt Service ... Mortgage payment ... include Insurances (property, PMI, etc) == Net Operating Income (NOI) Now NOI (minus) Taxes == Net Income Net Income (add back) Depreciation (add back) sometimes Mortgage Interest == After-tax Cash Flows There are two \"\"quickie\"\" numbers real estate investors can spout off. One is the NOI, the other is the Cap Rate. In order to answer \"\"How effective is THIS development?\"\" you'll have to run the numbers yourself and decide. The NOI will be based on any assumptions you choose to make for vacancy rates, actual revenue from hotel room bookings, etc. But it will show you how much you should bring in before taxes each year. If you divide the NOI by the asking price of your unit (and then multiply by 100), you'll get the \"\"Cap Rate\"\". This is a rough estimate of the rate of return you can expect for your unit... if you buy in. If you come back and say \"\"well I found out it has a XX% cap rate\"\", we won't really be qualified to help you out. Well established mega investment properties (think shopping centers, office buildings, etc.) can be as low as 3-5 cap rates, and as high as 10-12. The more risky the property, the higher your return should be. But if it's something you like, and the chance to make a 6% return feels right, then that's your choice. Or if you have something like a 15% cap rate... that's not necessarily outstanding given the level of risk (uncertain vacancies) involved in a hotel. Some other questions you should ask yourself include: How much competition is there in the area for short-term lodging? This could drive vacancies up or down... and rents up or down as well How 'liquid' will the property (room) be as an asset? If you can just break even on operating expense, then it might still make sense as an investment if you think that it might appreciate in value AND you would be able to sell the unit to someone else. How much experience does this property management company have... (a) in general, (b) running hotels, and (c) running these kinds of condo-hotel combination projects? I would be especially interested in what exactly you're getting in return for paying them 40% of every booking. Seasonality? This will play into Joe Taxpayer's question about Vacancy Rates. Your profile says you're from TX... which hints that you probably aren't looking at a condo on ski slopes or anything, but if you're looking at something that's a spring break-esque destination, then you might still have a great run of high o during March/April/May/June, but be nearly empty during October/November/December. I hope that helps. There is plenty of room to make a more \"\"exact\"\" model of what your cash flows might look like, but that will be based on assumptions and research you're probably not making at this time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d29f6f86cd17c3bafbdf07d5cf9021a6",
"text": "\"I would also suggest finding the training resource within your state for real estate agent license exam prep... When I was getting started, I took the \"\"101\"\" level course and it was worth the few hundred bucks for the overview I gleaned.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95256edb22555049c2e5d130e88e5287",
"text": "\"Get everything in writing. That includes ownership %, money in, money out, who is allowed to use the place, how much they need to pay the other partners, who pays for repairs, whether to provide 'friends and family' discounts, who is allowed to sell, what happens if someone dies, how is the mortgage set up, what to do if one of you becomes delinquent, etc. etc. etc. Money and friends don't mix. And that's mostly because people have different ideas in their head about what 'fair' means. Anything you don't have in writing, if it comes up in a disagreement, could cause a friendship-ending fight. Even if you are able to agree on every term and condition under the sun, there's still a problem - what if 5 years from now, someone decides that a certain clause isn't fair? Imagine one of you needs to move into the condo because your primary residence was pulled out from under you. They crash at the condo because they have no where else to go. You try to demand payment, but they lost their job. The agreement might say \"\"you must pay the partnership if you use the condo personally, at the standard monthly rate * # of days\"\". But what is the penalty clause - is everything under penalty of eviction, and forced sale of the condo and distribution of profits? Following through on such a penalty means the friendship would be over. You would feel guilty about doing it, and also about not doing it [at the same time, your other partner loses their job, and can't make 1/3rd of the mortgage payments anymore! They need the rent or the bank will foreclose on their house!] etc etc etc Even things like maintenance - are the 3 of you going to do it yourselves? Labour distributed how? Will anyone get a management fee? What about a referral fee for a new renter? Once you've thought of all possible circumstances and rules, and drafted it in writing, go talk to a lawyer, and maybe an accountant. There will be many things you won't have considered yet, and paying a few grand today will save you money and friends in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7561647c86ee2f2e4b5a95ab543ff10a",
"text": "You are planning on signing a contract for, likely, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and plan on paying, likely, tens of thousands of dollars in a deposit. For a house that is not built yet. This isn't particularly unusual, lots of people do this. But, you need a lawyer. Now, before you sign anything. Your agent may be able to recommend a lawyer, but beware; your agent may have a conflict of interest here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45f230c6edd52f6171a2bb1898d7f48d",
"text": "RealConnect is a unique independent real estate company which connects residential & commercial property owners & investors to real estate agents and property managers. We operate Australia wide & have registered agents waiting to offer their services from most areas across the country. We have a keen passion to create an easy to use, low cost system to benefit everyone dealing in the real estate industry. We aim to increase profits for property owners as well as real estate agents by lowering the business expenses for the agents and allowing them to offer the same service to property owners for less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db4f5b8c8554adc8b7515bc41491d4c3",
"text": "\"I'd suggest changing the subject when your friends talk about real estate to save your sanity and friendship. There's a difference between \"\"belief\"\" and \"\"knowledge\"\". Arguing with a believer isn't a very productive course of action, and will ultimately poison the friendship. Reality is a harsh mistress.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73714a6fd3ad30dd3f5a834177aeddde",
"text": "People in the United States in the mid-2000's thought that real estate was safe. Then they discovered that when the bubble burst the value of their house dropped 10 to 50%. Then they realized that they couldn't sell, even if they had the cash to make the lender whole. Some lost their houses to foreclosure, others walked away and took massive hits to their wealth and credit scores. When it is hard or impossible to sell, that means you can't move to where the jobs are. While it is possible to make money in real estate, treating your house as an investment vehicle means that you are putting not only all your eggs into one basket; you are also living in the basket. In general you should assume that all investment involves risk. So if you are trying to avoid all chances of losing money then the safest form of investment is via your bank account and government bonds. Your national government has a program to insure bank accounts, you need to understand the rules for that program, including types of accounts and amounts. You should also look into your national programs for retirement accounts, to make sure you are investing for the long term. Many people invest via the stock market or the bond market. These investments are not guaranteed, though there may be some protection for fraud. The more specific your investments (individual companies) the more time you need to invest in research and tracking. Many investors do so via mutual funds or Exchange Traded Funds, this involves less of a time investment because you are paying the management comp nay for the fund to do that research for all their investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3da43b5fef21f1219c04418d4457f804",
"text": "\"I work for an international real estate consulting firm in Shanghai. After graduation I worked in their Research Department for two years before switching to Commercial Brokerage 3 months ago. Since my background was in Economics, I had to learn a lot about how the industry worked. I found this book to be very helpful: \"\"Commercial Real Estate Analysis & Investments\"\" by David Geltner. I will admit that it's probably more than what you want to know, but it seriously gives an in depth breakdown of the entire industry. About one year into starting, a major Real Estate iBank commissioned our company to due diligence on an office building acquisition in Shanghai. I was the only person capable of doing it as everyone else was either busy or couldn't speak English properly. With 1 year under my belt in Research and that book, I took the entire thing on. Had to walk into that meeting by myself with all the big wigs from New York, London, Hong Kong and Shanghai questioning every single number and assumption. I fucking nailed it. While credit towards understanding the market through work is deserved, a lot of the development of that report came from constantly consulting that book. It's worth every penny if your interested in commercial real estate investment. That being said, if you want to track deals, the best place is called Real Estate Capital Analytics. Unfortunately you have to fork over a decent amount of cash to get access. For your situation I would recommend the following: - \"\"The Urban Land Institute & PwC Emerging Trends in Real Estate\"\": I believe you need to be a member but I can always find it online for free. - Brokerage firms: I work in one and we cover residential, commercial and retail reports on cities throughout the world (I actually wrote the ones for China for two years). You can find a wealth of information in them. If you are seriously looking at buying with capital, call up the research department and ask if they have some time to discuss the market face to face; if you don't have capital, they won't talk to you. Fortunately however, most let you download their reports for free from their website so here's the list of the major ones in the US: CBRE, Colliers, CRESA, Cushman & Wakefield, Jones Lang LaSalle, etc. - The Loop - www.loopnet.com has a wealth of information from Commercial properties on the market to previous deals. Please let me know if I can further advise.\"",
"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": "2f44be813afb8afafb925d4a8937b0c3",
"text": "\"Here's a formula; I had to go over to SEMath, use their MathJax to compose the answer and then paste this screen shot. As a result, I can't fix a typo: \"\"ST\"\" is the same as \"\"St\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
41f394ed83dd1b269781432783fdcaab
|
What is a better way for an American resident in a foreign country to file tax?
|
[
{
"docid": "0152ba06545b89e5d1178360243f5d4b",
"text": "\"If you live outside the US, then you probably need to deal with foreign tax credits, foreign income exclusions, FBAR forms (you probably have bank account balances enough for the 10K threshold) , various monsters the Congress enacted against you like form 8939 (if you have enough banking and investment accounts), form 3520 (if you have a IRA-like local pension), form 5471 (if you have a stake in a foreign business), form 8833 (if you have treaty claims) etc ect - that's just what I had the pleasure of coming across, there's more. TurboTax/H&R Block At Home/etc/etc are not for you. These programs are developed for a \"\"mainstream\"\" American citizen and resident who has nothing, or practically nothing, abroad. They may support the FBAR/FATCA forms (IIRC H&R Block has a problem with Fatca, didn't check if they fixed it for 2013. Heard reports that TurboTax support is not perfect as well), but nothing more than that. If you know the stuff well enough to fill the forms manually - go for it (I'm not sure they even provide all these forms in the software though). Now, specifically to your questions: Turbo tax doesn't seem to like the fact that my wife is a foreigner and doesn't have a social security number. It keeps bugging me to input a valid Ssn for her. I input all zeros for now. Not sure what to do. No, you cannot do that. You need to think whether you even want to include your wife in the return. Does she have income? Do you want to pay US taxes on her income? If she's not a US citizen/green card holder, why would you want that? Consider it again. If you decide to include here after all - you have to get an ITIN for her (instead of SSN). If you hire a professional to do your taxes, that professional will also guide you through the ITIN process. Turbo tax forces me to fill out a 29something form that establishes bonafide residency. Is this really necessary? Again in here it bugs me about wife's Ssn Form 2555 probably. Yes, it is, and yes, you have to have a ITIN for your wife if she's included. My previous state is California, and for my present state I input Foreign. When I get to the state tax portion turbo doesn't seem to realize that I have input foreign and it wants me to choose a valid state. However I think my first question is do i have to file a California tax now that I am not it's resident anymore? I do not have any assets in California. No house, no phone bill etc If you're not a resident in California, then why would you file? But you might be a partial resident, if you lived in CA part of the year. If so, you need to file 540NR for the part of the year you were a resident. If you have a better way to file tax based on this situation could you please share with me? As I said - hire a professional, preferably one that practices in your country of residence and knows the provisions of that country's tax treaty with the US. You can also hire a professional in the US, but get a good one, that specializes on expats.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3640c3d8eb5ae32901be9fe97c340101",
"text": "There's no law that prohibits a US citizen or US LPR from holding an account abroad, at least in a country that's not subject to some sort of embargo, so I don't see how it could affect your wife's chances of getting US citizenship when she's eligible. As mentioned by other posters, you'll have to file FBAR if the money you have in all your accounts abroad exceeds $10k at any point of the year and if the account pays any interest, you'll have to tell the IRS about the interest paid and (if applicable) taxes you paid on the interest income abroad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2948cd0e63af02de801485656a7996bc",
"text": "\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc721c0bcdd095c130ae3e926407beb0",
"text": "Companies in the US will take care of paying a portion of your required income tax on your behalf based on some paperwork you fill out when starting work. However, it is up to you as an individual to submit an income tax return. This is used to ensure that you did not end up under or overpaying based on what your company did on your behalf and any other circumstances that may impact your actual tax owed. In my experience, the process is similar in Europe. I think anyone who has a family, a house or investments in Europe would need to file an income tax return as that is when things start to get complex.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "810d4842bdc077402c3b1d10247a8e7f",
"text": "If your gross income is only $3000, then you don't need to file: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf That said, pay careful attention to: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad You should be reporting ALL income, without regard to WHERE you earned it, on your US taxes. Not doing so could indeed get you in trouble if you are audited. Your level of worry depends on how much of the tax law you are willing to dodge, and how lucky you feel.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e11cdeaad788b7bd62e45704991b7ad2",
"text": "Plenty of retired people do stay in the US for longer than 60 days and don't pay taxes. In this IRS document 60 days stay appears to be the test for having a 'substantial presence' in the US, which is part of the test for determining residency. However the following is also written: Even if you meet the substantial presence test, you can be treated as a nonresident alien if you are present in the United States for fewer than 183 days during the current calendar year, you maintain a tax home in a foreign country during the year, and you have a closer connection to that country than to the United States. In other words, if your property in the US is not your main one, you pay tax in another country, and you stay there less than half the year, you should be treated as a non-resident (I am not a lawyer and this is not advice). This IRS webpage describes the tax situation of nonresident aliens. As I understand it, if you are not engaged in any kind of business in the US and have no income from US sources then you do not have to file a tax return. You should also look into the subject of double tax agreements. If your home country has one, and you pay taxes there, you probably won't need to pay extra tax to the US. But again, don't take my word for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6848e7ec4c1f2dd2f1436826fa588d0b",
"text": "I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ee9f8d91bf9c6edf84fc8a1577ed745",
"text": "Instead of SSN, foreign person should get a ITIN from the IRS. Instead of W9 a foreigner should fill W8-BEN. Foreigner might also be required to file 1040NR/NR-EZ tax report, and depending on tax treaties also be liable for US taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc041b18ffe6b806ba4fbcb0c963b9b0",
"text": "\"The IRS taxes worldwide income of its citizens and green card holders. Generally, for those Americans genuinely living/working overseas the IRS takes the somewhat reasonable position of being in \"\"2nd place\"\" tax-wise. That is, you are expected to pay taxes in the country you are living in, and these taxes can reduce the tax you would have owed in the USA. Unfortunately, all of this has to be documented and tax returns are still required every year. Your European friends may find this quite surprising as I've heard, for instance, that France will not tax you if you go live and work in Germany. A foreign company operating in a foreign country under foreign law is not typically required to give you a W-2, 1099, or any of the forms you are used to. Indeed, you should be paying taxes in the place where you live and work, which is probably somewhat different than the USA. Keep all these records as they may be useful for your USA taxes as well. You are required to total up what you were paid in Euros and convert them to US$. This will go on the income section of a 1040. You should be paying taxes in the EU country where you live. You can also total those up and convert to US$. This may be useful for a foreign tax credit. If you are living in the EU long term, like over 330 days/year or you have your home and family there, then you might qualify for a very large exemption from your income for US tax purposes, called the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. This is explained in IRS Publication 54. The purpose of this is primarily to avoid double taxation. FBAR is a serious thing. In past years, the FBAR form went to a Financial Crimes unit in Detroit, not the regular IRS address. Also, getting an extension to file taxes does not extend the deadline for the FBAR. Some rich people have paid multi-million dollar fines over FBAR and not paying taxes on foreign accounts. I've heard you can get a $10,000 FBAR penalty for inadvertent, non-willful violations so be sure to send those in and it goes up from there to $250k or half the value of the account, whichever is more. You also need to know about whether you need to do FATCA reporting with your 1040. There are indeed, a lot of obnoxious things you need to know about that came into existence over the years and are still on the law books -- because of the perpetual 'arms race' between the government and would be cheaters, non-payers and their advisors. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ http://americansabroad.org/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d53cbcfda05a67c215e8a525befa1ad0",
"text": "You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53af2fbd6c534776004b7b8a41d14360",
"text": "\"Read up on filing an \"\"amended tax return\"\". Essentially you'll fill out the entire return as it should have been originally, then fill out form 1040X stating what has changed (and pay the additional tax due if needed). According to TurboTax's website, they have partnered with Sprintax for non-resident tax prep. I am not vouching for the service; just offering it as information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb125c96f620e4c9f504cb2ff32448c2",
"text": "\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \"\"shoot the jaywalker\"\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28526f65abdc2985664cffeb477ba4eb",
"text": "\"IRS Pub 554 states (click to read full IRS doc): \"\"Do not file a federal income tax return if you do not meet the filing requirements and are not due a refund. ... If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must file a return if your gross income for the year was at least the amount shown on the appropriate line in Table 1-1 below. \"\" You may not have wage income, but you will probably have interest, dividend, capital gains, or proceeds from sale of a house (and there is a special note that you must file in this case, even if you enjoy the exclusion for primary residence)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b9bce9854b27eaf8e901277ae0536e3",
"text": "If you're paying a foreign person directly - you submit form 1042 and you withhold the default (30%) amount unless the person gives you a W8 with a valid treaty claim and tax id. If so - you withhold based on the treaty rate. From the IRS: General Rule In general, a person that makes a payment of U.S. source income to a foreign person must withhold the proper amount of tax, report the payment on Form 1042-S and file a Form 1042 by March 15 of the year following the payment(s). I'd suggest to clarify this with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who's familiar with this kind of issues, and not rely on free advice on the Internet or DIY. Specific cases require specific advice and while the general rule above holds in most cases - in some there are exceptions.",
"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": "b810befb58360be5aa7896bc91f112ce",
"text": "Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bf3469d8c132fd3cca6ec5033293bb16
|
Selling equities for real-estate down payment
|
[
{
"docid": "c57aed130745f7340909eab64d045c58",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be to do the math. That is the best advice you can get when considering any investment. There are other factors you haven't considered, too... like the fact that interest rates are at extremely low levels right now, so borrowing money is relatively cheap. If you're outside the US though, that may be less of a consideration as the mortgage lending institutions in Europe only tend to give 5-year locks on loan rates without requiring a premium. You may be somewhere else in the world. You will probably struggle to do the actual math about the probability of the market going down or up, but what you can do is this: Figure out what it would cost you to cash out the investments. You say your balance is $53,000 in various items. (Congrats! That's a nice chunk of money.) But with commissions and taxes and etc., it may reduce the value of your investments by 10% - 25% when you try to cash out those investments. Paying $3,000 to get that money out of the investments is one thing... but if you're sending $10,000 to the tax man when you sell this all off, that changes the economics of your investments a LOT. In that case you might be better off seeing what happens if the markets correct by 10%... you'd still have more than if you sold out and paid major taxes. Once you know your down payment, calculate the amount of property you could afford. You know your down payment could be somewhere around $50,000 after taxes and other items... At an 80:20 loan-to-value ratio that's about $250,000 of a property that you can qualify for, assuming you could obtain the loan for $200,000. What could you buy for that? Do some shopping and figure out what your options are... Once you have two or three potential properties, figure out the answer to \"\"What would the property give you?\"\" Is it going to be rented out? Are you going to live there? Both? If you're living in it, then you come out ahead if the costs for the mortgage debt and the ongoing maintenance and repairs are less than what you currently pay in rent. Figure out what you pay right now to put a roof over your head. Will the place you could buy need repairs? Will you pay more on a mortgage for $200,000 USD (in your local currency) than what you currently do for housing? Don't even factor in the possible appreciation of a house you inhabit when you're making this kind of investment decision... it could just as easily burn down as go up in value. If you would rent it, what kind of rental would that be? Long-term rental? Expect to pay for other people to break your stuff. Short-term rental? You can collect more money per tenant per day, but you'll end up with higher vacancy rates. And people still break your stuff. But do the math and see if you could collect enough in rent from a tenant (person or business or whatever the properties are you could buy) to cover the amount you are paying in debt, plus what you would pay in taxes (rent is income), plus what you would need for maintenance, plus insurance. IF the numbers make sense, then real estate can be a phenomenally lucrative investment. I own some investment properties myself. It is a great hedge against inflation (you can raise rents when contracts lapse... usually) and it is an excellent way to own a tangible item. But if you don't know the numbers and exactly how it would make you better off than sitting and hoping that the markets go up, because they generally do over time, then don't take the jump.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b4e446ef6ed7ae3dba27349e0b3fede8",
"text": "You're not crazy, but the banks are. Here's the problem: You're taking 100% LTV on property A - you won't be able to get a second mortgage for more than 80% total (including the current mortgage) LTV. That's actually something I just recently learned from my own experience. If the market is bad, the banks might even lower the LTV limit further. So essentially, at least 20% of your equity in A will remain on the paper. Banks don't like seeing the down-payment coming from anywhere other than your savings. Putting the downpayment from loan proceeds, even if not secured by the property which you're refinancing, will probably scare banks off. How to solve this? Suggest to deal with it as a business, putting both properties under a company/LLC, if possible. It might be hard to change the titles while you have loans on your properties, but even without it - deal with it as if it is a business. Approach your bank for a business loan - either secured by A or unsecured, and another investment loan for B. Describe your strategy to the banker (preferably a small community bank in the area where the properties are), and how you're going to fund the properties. You won't get rates as low as you have on A (3.25% on investment loan? Not a chance, that one is a keeper), but you might be able to get rid of the balloon/variable APR problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b027f0a256497e1482eeda873c4335b",
"text": "Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate help shareholders (employees, ex-employees, etc.) in private companies get liquidity for shares they already own. ESOFund and 137 Ventures help with option financing, and provide loans (and exotic structures on loans) to cover costs of exercising options and any associated tax hit. EquityZen is a private company marketplace that led the second wave of VC-backed secondary markets starting early 2013. The mission is to help achieve liquidity for employees and other private company shareholder, but in a company-approved way. EquityZen transacts with share transfers and also a proprietary derivative structure which transfers economics of a company's shares without changing voting and information rights. This structure typically makes the transfer process cheaper and faster as less paperwork is involved. Accredited investors find the process appealing because they get access to companies they usually cannot with small check sizes. To address the questions in Dzt's post: 1). EquityZen doesn't take a 'loan shark' approach meaning they don't front shareholders money so that they can purchase their stock. With EquityZen, you’re either selling your shares or selling all the economic risk—upside and downside—in exchange for today’s value. 2). EquityZen only allows company approved deals on the platform. As a result, companies are more friendly towards the process and they tend to allow these deals to take place. Non-company approved deals pose risks for buyers and sellers and are ultimately unsustainable. As a buyer, without company blessing, you’re taking on significant counterparty risk from the seller (will they make good on their promise to deliver shares in the future?) or the risk that the transfer is impermissible under relevant restrictions and your purchase is invalid. As a seller, you’re running the risk of violating your equity agreements, which can have severe penalties, like forfeiture of your stock. Your shares are also much less marketable when you’re looking to transact without the company’s knowledge or approval. 3). Terms don't change depending an a shareholder's situation. EquityZen is a professional company and values all of the shareholders that use the platform. It’s a marketplace so the market sets the price. In other situations, you may be at the mercy of just one large buyer. This can happen when you’re facing a big tax bill on exercise but don’t have the cash (because you have the stock). 4). EquityZen doesn't offer loans so this is a non issue. 5). Not EquityZen! EquityZen creates a clean break from the economics. It’s not uncommon for the loan structures to use an interest component as well as some other complications, like upside participation and and also a liquidation preference. EquityZen strives for a simple structure where you’re not on the hook for the downside and you’ve transferred all the upside as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af07b740b87613ecc580fd8f8e59ced",
"text": "\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98863528ca9a2014fa3bc34c6c060f5a",
"text": "yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate. yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees. the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates. in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c930926902e10d8b135a90ddfbcc9a",
"text": "THANK YOU so much! That is exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately I'm goign to be really busy for 7 days but I'd love to tear through some of this material and ask you some questions if you don't mind. What do you do for a living now? Still in real estate? Did you go toward the brokerage side or are you still consulting? What's the atmosphere/day-to-day like?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "488a2e2da0765eb148803ded8cdeccfb",
"text": "Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment. It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area. There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash. If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame. This is no guarantee of course. Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further. While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home. The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk. Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate. When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa). Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1204c1c74efccffe5263f5a5928bbdca",
"text": "Buying individual/small basket of high dividend shares is exposing you to 50%+ and very fast potential downswings in capital/margin calls. There is no free lunch in returns in this respect: nothing that pays enough to help you pay your mortgage at a high rate won’t expose you to a lot of potential volatility. Main issue here looks like you have very poorly performing rental investments you should consider selling or switching up rental usage/how you rent them (moving to shorter term, higher yield lets, ditching any agents/handymen that are taking up capital/try and refinance to lower mortgage rates etc etc). Trying to use leveraged stock returns to pay for poorly performing housing investments is like spraying gasoline all over a fire. Fixing the actual issue in hand first is virtually always the best course of action in these scenarios.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad9c8354dd526a1f94c6ca1f2ff3a52c",
"text": "A bigger down payment is good, because it insulates you from the swings in the real estate market. If you get FHA loan with 3% down and end up being forced to move during a down market, you'll be in a real bind, as you'll need to scrape up some cash or borrow funds to get out of your mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2de50b0a507dbbebf92b1c947f1e604b",
"text": "How does one buy this quantity of TIPS? Do you simply buy directly from the US Treasury? You will might have to go through a financial institution like a broker or a bank. Edit: You can also buy bonds directly with TreasuryDirect. Is it cheaper to buy a fund that invests in TIPS? It might be cheaper depending on the fund itself. But you can't know for sure the price that the fund will be worth at you payout date. Since bonds can go up in value (and are likely to with rates this low), is there a way to measure potential downside? Statistically speaking yes. You can look at the variation in price/interest of the bonds in the last years, to see how they usually move, then compute the price range where they are likely to be (that can be wide for volatile securities). But there is no guarantee that there won't be some black swan event that will make the price shoot up/down. In another word, it's speculation Can I mitigate downside risk by choosing different TIPS maturity? There are quantitative strategies to do that, like finding that some products that are negatively correlated, such that a loss in one is be hedged by a gain in another. However those correlation are likely to be just statistics. And for every product that you buy you are likely to have to pay some fees for your bank/broker which can be more devastating than the inflation itself. Is there some other strategy I should be considering to protect my cash against inflation (or maybe a mixed strategy)? As I wrote above, trying to use complex financial products can incurs loss and will have fees (both for buying and selling). Is it really necessary to hedge from a 2% inflation by taking such risk? Personally, I don't think so. If I were you I would just be buying bonds maturing for your payout date. That would negate the reselling risk and reduce the fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6278cee56a5973aae9cec2d8328fb568",
"text": "\"Generally, when you own something - you can give it as a collateral for a secured loan. That's how car loans work and that's how mortgages work. Your \"\"equity\"\" in the asset is the current fair value of the asset minus all your obligations secured by it. So if you own a property free and clear, you have 100% of its fair market value as your equity. When you mortgage your property, banks will usually use some percentage loan-to-value to ensure they're not giving you more than your equity now or in a foreseeable future. Depending on the type and length of the loan, the LTV percentage varies between 65% and 95%. Before the market crash in 2008 you could even get more than 100% LTV, but not anymore. For investment the LTV will typically be lower than for primary residence, and the rates higher. I don't want to confuse you with down-payments and deposits as it doesn't matter (unless you're in Australia, apparently). So, as an example, assume you have an apartment you rent out, which you own free and clear. Lets assume its current FMV is $100K. You go to a bank and mortgage the apartment for a loan (get a loan secured by that apartment) at 65% LTV (typical for condos for investment). You got yourself $65K to buy another unit free and clear. You now have 2 apartments with FMV $165K, your equity $100K and your liability $65K. Mortgaging the new unit at the same 65% LTV will yield you another $42K loan - you may buy a third unit with this money. Your equity remains constant when you take the loan and invest it in the new purchase, but the FMV of your assets grows, as does the liability secured by them. But while the mortgage has fixed interest rate (usually, not always), the assets appreciate at different rates. Now, lets be optimistic and assume, for the sake of simplicity of the example, that in 2 years, your $100K condo is worth $200K. Voila, you can take another $65K loan on it. The cycle goes on. That's how your grandfather did it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c8a416ad3271707caef66cfe7803798",
"text": "Pay cash for the house but negotiate at least a 4% discount. You already made your money without having to deal with long term unknowns. I don't get why people would want invest with risk when the alternative are immediate realized gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b89990eeba193697f81dbf2659aaadf4",
"text": "\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0b313dc70955d4dd6322d735b89def0",
"text": "Don't do it. I would sell one of my investment houses and use the equity to pay down your primary mortgage. Then I would refinance my primary mortgage in order to lower the payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e7f7a24bf514c80562b0fb0562fcf4c",
"text": "\"How can one offset exposure created by real-estate purchase? provides a similar discussion. Even if such a product were available in the precise increments you need, the pricing would make it a loser for you. \"\"There's no free lunch\"\" in this case, and the cost to insure against the downside would be disproportional to the true risk. Say you bought a $100K home. At today's valuations, the downside over a given year might be, say, 20%. It might cost you $5000 to 'insure' against that $20K risk. Let me offer an example - The SPY (S&P ETF) is now at $177. A $160 (Dec '14) put costs $7.50. So, if you fear a crash, you can pay 4%, but only get a return if the market falls by over 14%. If it falls 'just' 10%, you lose your premium. With only 5% down, you will get a far better risk-adjusted return by paying down the mortgage to <78% LTV, and requesting PMI, if any, be removed. Even if no PMI, in 5 years, you'll have 20% more equity than otherwise. Over the long term, 5 year's housing inflation would be ~ 15% or so. This process would help insure you are not underwater in that time. Not guarantee, but help.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04b7de29b81964c51f8be69e5e3d5cfe",
"text": "\"I don't have a formula for anything like this, but it is important to note that the \"\"current value\"\" of any asset is really theoretical until you actually sell it. For example, let's consider a house. You can get an appraisal done on your house, where your home is inspected, and the sales of similar houses in your area are compared. However, this value is only theoretical. If you found yourself in a situation where you absolutely had to sell your house in one week, you would most likely have to settle for much less than the appraised value. The same hold true for collectibles. If I have something rare that I need cash for immediately, I can take it to a pawn shop and get cash. However, if I take my time and locate a genuinely interested collector, I can get more for it. This is comparable to someone who holds a significant percentage of shares in a publicly held corporation. If the current market value of your shares is $10 million, but you absolutely need to sell your entire stake today, you aren't going to get $10 million. But if you take your time selling a little at a time, you are more likely to get much closer to this $10 million number. A \"\"motivated seller\"\" means that the price will drop.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
419f1e27d24757cc087ce7de011d973e
|
Working Capital Definition
|
[
{
"docid": "9e905a52faf79b0f5c72e8e48ceeefe1",
"text": "As you say, if you delay paying your bills, your liabilities will increase. Like say your bills total $10,000 per month. If you normally pay after 30 days, then your short-term liabilities will be $10,000. If you stretch that out to pay after 60 days, then you will be carrying two months worth of bills as a short-term liability, or $20,000. Your liabilities go up. Assume you keep the same amount of cash on hand after you stretch out your payments like this as you did before. Now your liabilities are higher but your assets are the same, so your working capital goes down. For example, suppose you kept $25,000 in the bank before this change and you still keep $30,000 after. Then before your working capital was $25,000 minus $10,000, or $15,000. After it is $25,000 minus $20,000, or only $5,000. So how does this relate to cash flow? While presumably if the company has $10,000 per month in bills, and their bank balance remains at $25,000 month after month, then they must have $10,000 per month in income that's going to pay those bills, or the bank balance would be going down. So now if they DON'T pay that $10,000 in bills this month, but the bank account doesn't go up by $10,000, then they must have spent the $10,000 on something else. That is, they have converted that money from an on-going balance into cash flow. Note that this is a one-time trick. If you stretch out your payment time from 30 days to 60 days, then you are now carrying 2 months worth of bills on your books instead of 1. So the first month that you do this -- if you did it all at once for all your bills -- you would just not pay any bills that month. But then you would have to resume paying the bills the next month. It's not like you're adding $10,000 to your cash flow every month. You're adding $10,000 to your cash flow the month that you make the change. Then you return to equilibrium. To increase your cash flow every month this way, you would have to continually increase the time it takes you to pay your bills: 30 days this month, 45 days the next, 60 the next, then 75, 90, etc. Pretty soon your bills are 20 years past due and no one wants to do business with you any more. Normally people see an action like this as an emergency measure to get over a short-term cash crunch. Adopting it as a long-term policy seems very short-sighted to me, creating a long-term relationship problem with your suppliers in exchange for a one-shot gain. But then, I'm not a big corporate finance officer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "69c205cbf9bf56e0b9473160c3e8c9ba",
"text": "Market Capitalization is the equity value of a company. It measures the total value of the shares available for trade in public markets if they were immediately sold at the last traded market price. Some people think it is a measure of a company's net worth, but it can be a misleading for a number of reasons. Share price will be biased toward recent earnings and the Earnings Per Share (EPS) metric. The most recent market price only reflects the lowest price one market participant is willing to sell for and the highest price another market participant is willing to buy for, though in a liquid market it does generally reflect the current consensus. In an imperfect market (for example with a large institutional purchase or sale) prices can diverge widely from the consensus price and when multiplied by outstanding shares, can show a very distorted market capitalization. It is also a misleading number when comparing two companies' market capitalization because while some companies raise the money they need by selling shares on the markets, others might prefer debt financing from private lenders or sell bonds on the market, or some other capital structure. Some companies sell preferred shares or non-voting shares along with the traditional shares that exist. All of these factors have to be considered when valuing a company. Large-cap companies tend to have lower but more stable growth than small cap companies which are still expanding into new markets because of their smaller size.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d91641b0115b29c154cba6ec4cc1368",
"text": "Just to clarify things: The Net Working Capital is the funds, the capital that will finance the everyday, the short term, operations of a company like buying raw materials, paying wages erc. So, Net Working Capital doesn't have a negative impact. And you should not see the liabilities as beneficial per se. It's rather the fact that with smaller capital to finance the short term operations the company is able to make this EBIT. You can see it as the efficiency of the company, the smaller the net working capital the more efficient the company is (given the EBIT). I hope you find it helpful, it's my first amswer here. Edit: why do you say the net working capital has a negative impact?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "862b9445109a46967822a08ef1286be4",
"text": "Buying capital assets doesn't immediatley reduce a company's profits. They can get allowances for it but the assets are written down over a number of years Edit: two comments below mine were deleted which fairly called me out for amazon's high capital investment policy to which I reaponded: Fine I've had a few drinks. All I meant was capital doesn't directly reduce profits in most instances. Large investments like amazon would. You are right. But for Joe bloggs limited it doesn't. I had in mind the accountant the movie where one line Affleck says confuses capital and revenue and it stuck with me that a lot of people thought this. Didn't mean to have a go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9529241402c4dcf8bf0a1425d45b5c92",
"text": "I think this is a bit of fallacy. Capital is not a fix thing. If there is value to be realized, business can find the money. The issue really is that the job is hard and the company views it as a cost, not an investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4521934ec85b9804d0873a7241a44ee",
"text": "Companies in their earliest stages will likely not have profits but do have the potential for profits. Thus, there can be those that choose to invest in companies that require capital to stay in business that have the potential to make money. Venture Capital would be the concept here that goes along with John Bensin's points that would be useful background material. For years, Amazon.com lost money particularly for its first 6 years though it has survived and taken off at times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b05298f3563d6864d3393cef31eb4c9",
"text": "Based on the definitions I found on Investopedia, it depends on whether or not it is going against an asset or a liability. I am not sure what type of accounting you are performing, but I know in my personal day-to-day dealings credits are money coming into my account and debits are money going out of my account. Definition: Credit, Definition: Debit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8efcdd3d51f7df55046289063213940d",
"text": "\"Doing fine != creating more jobs edit:4 million in the past two years isn't really enough to say that we are making any real progress on the millions out of work. Also wages are declining as they seek to cut costs which is a major problem as well. They way you define \"\"fine\"\" is very relative.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f4e6ede9c7537f3b3b238688c7e2262",
"text": "While true, I don't have capital. The VC does. And while whatever my product is is in development, I'm haemorrhaging that capital on things like food and rent. If I want to make more, my startup is put on hold while I find some paid work. The dollar signs are an incentive for the VC to help make your business a success.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f76bb54bf06f0c84f8169e7d1583ffa0",
"text": "Living wage applies to the location that the job is in. Warehouse in Northern KY? Living wage for northern KY. Warehouse in NYC? Living wage for NYC. Those numbers will be very different. As for a definition of a living wage, that varies. One definition is that it's the minimum income that allows a worker to meet their basic needs (food, housing, transportation, healthcare, etc), presumably without needing to rely on a social net. If you need for food stamps or housing assistance to meet your basic needs for food and shelter, you probably aren't making a living wage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70d63e6d6967e380b926dcbec8186683",
"text": "Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bc6f8bc8f09c67ea95d522896ed8f58",
"text": "Put simply: Financial Services provides or facilitates access to capital in some capacity, and are companies unto themselves (TD Ameritrade, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc), this also includes accounting companies which provide financial information, and insurance companies that deal with risk. Corporate Finance is part of all businesses in any industry (So for example Starbucks has a finance department, and those employees are doing corporate finance), and plans how to use capital to fund a company's projects and make sure there is sufficient cash on hand as it's needed for daily operations. Corporate Finance interacts with Financial Services to access the capital needed to fund the business's activities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8627b383cbdb6db68614a5784acb1870",
"text": "In view of business, we have to book the entries. Business view, owner and business are different. When capital is invested in business by owner, in future business has to repay it. That's why, capital always credit. When we come about bank (business prospective) - cash, bank, fd are like assets which can help in the business. Bank is current asset (Real account) - Debit (what comes into the business) Credit (what goes out of the business) Hence credit and debit differs from what type of account is it.... credit - when business liables debit - what business has and receivables",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "085b9e5bbc0ece3cb0def12fbf86347c",
"text": "You need to look at where the profits are coming from. In this case, compressed wage growth and extreme cost-cutting. I mean shit, Dimon ripped out all of JPMs Bloomberg terminals. Work happiness at banks are much lower and people are leaving, save for at certain types of banks. The profits are just coming from employees. Overtime is a lot lower to non-existent in right to work states and you'll pull 10-30 hours over what you signed on for on a weekly basis. If you're not aware of what capital requirements are then I really can't dive into this. I suggest you read up on Basel 3, the US system, liquidity cover ratio (LCR) and then understand generally what products yield more and the risks attached to those. If you do know those then I feel like you know where my response is going, but I'm happy to get into it more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ac0b0b64d309a1940fa5d71c715c966",
"text": "Means A has a much higher level of interest payments dye to either higher debt or higher cost of debt (or combination of both). MM theory suggests higher debt in a capital structure due to the tax shield but you need to consider if A's debt level is appropriate or too high and what that says about your company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0821351bfacb6aad101a8173bd66ac7b",
"text": "Also, cash doesn't necessarily mean cash in the bank, like you or I would think of. It means cash-convertible (usually bonds) that can be sold or turned into cash within three months period (but usually can be done within a few weeks). But like you said, they are probably making more money by keeping it in their current investments. Plus, interest rates are at the lowest they will ever be, and GE is practically borrowing money for free. Quite smart, actually.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eaa32a90cdd1d6af7d4be7a3b31e5668
|
How is it possible that a preauth sticks to a credit card for 30 days, even though the goods have already been delivered?
|
[
{
"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": "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": "cb458a8398ac271d53c61116ee276e29",
"text": "The answer to your question is very simple: The preauth and the shipment of the goods have no connection within the credit card system. It is possible to process a payment that does not cancel a preauthorization. This is needed for the case where you place two orders and the one you placed second ships first. A preauth can remain active for some time unless it is captured or cancelled. So in your case a preauth was placed and remained active. That you were shipped and billed for some goods had no effect on the preauth because one side or the other failed to attach them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eba7a600f5227339c9c5afd60a5e7888",
"text": "Open a dispute for the preauth. It is effectively a double charge, since you have already paid for the item. You can provide evidence of the other transaction. This forces them to go through some hassle and waste some time on the issue.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9ef4f6cf01afc7d380a31da26055fea9",
"text": "\"The only way to prevent it is to not use PayPal. The terms of usage are draconian, and by using the service you agree to them. I'm sure that when the case gets to a court of law, they will find where it is authorized. Paypal is not a bank, and the money there is basically \"\"entrusted\"\" with the company and is not insured by anyone. They don't need or have to be subject to the regulations on the banking industry, and they're no different than your neighbour carrying money for you to the grocery store when you're sick. Other options are wire transfer, services like Western Union or Moneygram, checks (better certified/cashier's checks), money orders or even cash. You can also charge via credit card, but you can get similar problems there (although it is still safer than PayPal because with credit card - the card owner must initiate the charge back, it doesn't appear on its own because they feel like it).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69eacef6ab630c1a74ab135faf233369",
"text": "\"When processing credit/debit cards there is a choice made by the company on how they want to go about doing it. The options are Authorization/Capture and Sale. For online transactions that require the delivery of goods, companies are supposed to start by initially Authorizing the transaction. This signals your bank to mark the funds but it does not actually transfer them. Once the company is actually shipping the goods, they will send a Capture command that tells the bank to go ahead and transfer the funds. There can be a time delay between the two actions. 3 days is fairly common, but longer can certainly be seen. It normally takes a week for a gas station local to me to clear their transactions. The second one, a Sale is normally used for online transactions in which a service is immediately delivered or a Point of Sale transaction (buying something in person at a store). This action wraps up both an Authorization and Capture into a single step. Now, not all systems have the same requirements. It is actually fairly common for people who play online games to \"\"accidentally\"\" authorize funds to be transferred from their bank. Processing those refunds can be fairly expensive. However, if the company simply performs an Authorization and never issues a capture then it's as if the transaction never occurred and the costs involved to the company are much smaller (close to zero) I'd suspect they have a high degree of parents claiming their kids were never authorized to perform transactions or that fraud was involved. If this is the case then it would be in the company's interest to authorize the transaction, apply the credits to your account then wait a few days before actually capturing the funds from the bank. Depending upon the amount of time for the wait your bank might have silently rolled back the authorization. When it came time for the company to capture, then they'd just reissue it as a sale. I hope that makes sense. The point is, this is actually fairly common. Not just for games but for a whole host of areas in which fraud might exist (like getting gas).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a33b7e79c798f5df57f893117b965db2",
"text": "Thanks it is problem for class and I don't want to give the problem I just want to understand how to actually do it and the book hasn't been much help. Only additional information I can provide is In Inventory – 15 days Accounts Receivable outstanding – 35 days Vendor credit – 40 days Operating Cycle – 50 days",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ccc83c20986bc4ce66ffc6f1c1bd529f",
"text": "Most merchants (also in Europe) are reasonable, and typically are willing to work with you. credit card companies ask if you tried to work with the merchant first, so although they do not enforce it, it should be the first try. I recommend to give it a try and contact them first. If it doesn't work, you can always go to the credit card company and have the charge reversed. None of this has any effect on your credit score (except if you do nothing and then don't pay your credit card bill). For the future: when a transaction supposedly 'doesn't go through', have them write this on the receipt and give it to you. Only then pay cash. I am travelling 100+ days a year in Europe, using my US credit cards all the time, and there were never any issues - this is not a common problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "846cc8abedf02be2afab8ad9cbc9cfd9",
"text": "You have paid the vendor (school?), etc, $75.75 too much, for whatever reason. They can send you back this money, or it can apply against a future bill. This is common when I pay my credit card in full, but also have a store return. The bill can show a credit, but it will quickly get used up by new purchases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cf0b1b52698457ba4a239a9a4f9d22d",
"text": "If Apple uses the customer's bank's prefix, then the bank gets the charge sent directly to themselves and Apple is not a payment intermediary Yes as part of adding a Card to Apple Pay, the details are sent over to issuing Bank along with device details and other info. Based on verification, the Bank sends a DAN[Device Account Number] and other codes. After you show your phone at Point of Sale, DAN gets transmitted. This is similar as Card Number getting transmitted, there is additional info encoded. Visa then sends this back to Issuing Bank and based on DAN the actual card is charged. So yes Apple doesn't know your Card Number once it gets the DAN. it's entirely possible that organized-criminals could devise even harder-to-find NFC skimmers Right now criminals have found the easy step ... as part of set-up Apple Pay sends info the Issuing Bank to Verify. If you are frequent user of iTunes and have used the same card for years, etc, its auto approved. Else they use alternative method, i.e. call the customer, etc. It is easy here to spawn. I get card details, no need to spend time in duplicating stuff [mag or chip]. Just try registering on Apply Pay, some one less experienced from Customer Service calls up and I am approved. Use this for few places and then just delete this card and add a new one. As Apply Pay doesn't store my card, they don't know new from old ...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a2ee7245fe5856128d2dcd81bec498e",
"text": "Is there a point after which they legally unable to charge me? No. If you gave a check, then the bank may bounce it as stale after 6 months, but doesn't have to. With debit/credit transactions, they post as they're processed, and some merchants may not sync their terminals or deposit their manual slips often. As the world becomes more and more connected this becomes extremely rare, but still happens. Technically your promise to pay is a contract which never expires, and they can come after you years later to collect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1245b875d4c560a9d50a0e41dd70425",
"text": "Are you sure the payment has actually posted and isn't sitting in a pre-auth status? If it is, it'll fall off in a few days and they're probably telling the truth. If not, and it has fully posted to your account, I agree with the others. It's very appropriate to initiate a chargeback. You can provide documentation showing they confirmed a cancellation, further, you can show proof that they had no intent of charging you. Good luck!",
"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": "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": "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": "44eeacf3e01e8a9cfbae847a310f1752",
"text": "So, my questions: Are payment cards provide sufficient security now? Yes. If so, how is that achieved? Depending on your country's laws, of course. In most places (The US and EU, notably), there's a statutory limit on liability for fraudulent charges. For transactions when the card is not present, proving that the charge is not fraudulent is merchants' task. Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? Is it? Try to copy someones credit card info next time you're in the line at the local grocery store. BTW, some of my friends tend to rub off the CVV code from the cards they get immediately after receiving; nevertheless, it could have already been written down by some unfair bank employee. Rubbish.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8071b4a036f2b53f735419ea2c7a99fc",
"text": "They should not be able to tell the difference between a regular card and a secured card. The issue for a vendor is can they put a lock on the account equal to the transaction you are about to do. For a rental car company they don't have an exact idea of what your charges will be: it is based on many options some of which you don't decide until the day you return the car. Because a secured card generally is on the small end (max measured in hundreds or at most $1,000) they might not be able to put a lock of sufficient size on the card.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a4c55a7d818cf4fb28de1fc6b24e709e
|
Do I need to report to FInCEN if I had greater than $10,000 worth of bitcoin in a foreign bitcoin exchange?
|
[
{
"docid": "efce0491704a8e58e2bad654003dc996",
"text": "Yes, I'd say you do. This is similar to reporting a brokerage account. Also, don't forget the requirements for form 8938.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af3575f1faff6c617daffd493faa8815",
"text": "Lets look at possible use cases: If you ever converted your cryptocurrency to cash on a foreign exchange, then **YES** you had to report. That means if you ever daytraded and the US dollar (or other fiat) amount was $10,000 or greater when you went out of crypto, then you need to report. Because the regulations stipulate you need to report over $10,000 at any point in the year. If you DID NOT convert your cryptocurrency to cash, and only had them on an exchange's servers, perhaps traded for other cryptocurrency pairs, then NO this did not fall under the regulations. Example, In 2013 I wanted to cash out of a cryptocurrency that didn't have a USD market in the United States, but I didn't want to go to cash on a foreign exchange specifically for this reason (amongst others). So I sold my Litecoin on BTC-E (Slovakia) for Bitcoin, and then I sold the Bitcoin on Coinbase (USA). (even though BTC-E had a Litecoin/USD market, and then I could day trade the swings easily to make more capital gains, but I wanted cash in my bank account AND didn't want the reporting overhead). Read the regulations yourself. Financial instruments that are reportable: Cash (fiat), securities, futures and options. Also, http://www.bna.com/irs-no-bitcoin-n17179891056/ whether it is just in the blockchain or on a server, IRS and FINCEN said bitcoin is not reportable on FBAR. When they update their guidance, it'll be in the news. The director of FinCEN is very active in cryptocurrency developments and guidance. Bitcoin has been around for six years, it isn't that esoteric and the government isn't that confused on what it is (IRS and FinCEN's hands are tied by Congress in how to more realistically categorize cryptocurrency) Although at this point in time, there are several very liquid exchanges within the United States, such as the one NYSE/ICE hosts (Coinbase).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bffe90d075b52449ec5d91e29289f36",
"text": "\"Firstly you have to know exactly what you are asking here. What you have if you \"\"own\"\" bitcoins is a private key that allows you to make a change to the blockchain that can assign a piece of information from yourself to the next person. Nothing more nothing less. The fact that this small piece of information is considered to have a market value, is a matter of opinion, and is analagous to owning a domain name. A domain name is an entry in a register, that has equal weight to all other entries, but the market determines if that information (eg: CocaCola.com) has any more value than say another less well know domain. Bitcoin is the same - an entry in a register, and the market decides which entry is more valuable than another. So what exactly are you wanting to declare to FinCEN? Are you willing to declare the ownership of private key? Of course not. So what then? An uncrackable private key can be generated at will by anyone, without even needing to \"\"own\"\" or transact in bitcoins, and that same private key would be equally valid on any of the 1000's of other bitcoin clones. The point I want to make is that owning a private key in itself is not valuable. Therefore you do not need, nor would anyone advise notifying FinCEN of that fact. To put this into context, every time you connect to online banking, your computer secretly generates a new random private key to secure your communications with the bank. Theoretically that same private key could also be used to sign a bitcoin transaction. Do you need to declare every private key your computer generates? No. Secondly, if you are using any of the latest generation of HD wallets, your private key changes with every single transaction. Are you seriously saying that you want to take it on your shoulders to inform FinCEN every time you move information (bitcoin amounts) around even in your own wallets? The fact is FinCEN could never \"\"discover\"\" your ownership of bitcoins (or any of the 1000s of alt coins) other than by you informing them of this fact. You may want to carefully consider the personal implications of starting down this road especially as all FinCEN would need to do is subpoena your bitcoin private key to steal your so-called funds, as they have done recently to other more prominent persons in the community. EDIT to clarify the points raised in comments. You do not own the private key to the bitcoins stored on a foreign exchange, nor can you discover it. The exchange owns the private key. You therefore do not either technically have control over the coins (MtGox is a very good example here - they went out of business because they allowed their private keys to be used by some other party who was able to siphon off the coins). Your balance is only yours when you own the private keys and the ability to spend. Any other situation you can neither recover the bitcoin to sell (to pay for any taxes due). So you do not either have the legal right nor the technical right to consider those coins in your possession. For those who do not understand the technical or legal implications of private key ownership, please do not speculate about what \"\"owning\"\" bitcoin actually means, or how ownership can be discovered. Holding Bitcoin is not illegal, and the US government who until recently were the single largest holder of Bitcoin demonstrate simply by this fact alone that there is nothing untoward here.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3d950755a8b61ed3e9d7451cdd84b0b3",
"text": "\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6741ccbfeef4e9a7fda20823cabc2b82",
"text": "No, you don't. But you do need to file FBAR to report your foreign accounts if you have $10K or more at any given day in all of them combined, when you're a US resident. You need to file FBAR annually by the end of June (note: it must be received by FinCEN by the end of June, but nowadays you file it electronically anyway).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "956ddecfc0653002284ed107b47600ee",
"text": "Don't all of the major bitcoin processors limit the risk to basically zero for the large multinationals that choose to accept bitcoin? I haven't been involved recently, but I know when bitpay and coinbase were starting, whatever bitcoin you received was automatically transferred to USD at the current rate, unless you opted out and chose to keep the bitcoin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10d39f80d62655e1021c876a1a6d6781",
"text": "If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "532edf7ff562fcf73cde242b4cffd10a",
"text": "> If you have a different currency from the U.S. Dollar, and it increases in value greatly, do you have to pay tax on that increased value relative to the U.S. dollar? Technically, all profit you make as a US citizen or resident is subject to tax. It doesn't matter in what currency the profit takes place, and it doesn't matter if the profit never hits US dollars at all. You made profit, you owe tax. Obviously the IRS is not going to bother with enforcing taxation on that Canadian twenty-dollar bill in your wallet from your last trip to Vancouver. But if you're sitting on a million dollars in Bitcoin profit, and the IRS finds out about it, expect them to start caring quite a bit. > There isn't much of a transaction record, is there? There is in fact a detailed and public transaction record. What there isn't is an easy way to match wallets to people; however, all similar machine learning projects seem to indicate that it wouldn't be hard at all to make these matchups.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c44e8add21de2cabf4f249a87937361",
"text": "I do not think banks have an obligation to report any deposits to the IRS, however, they probably have an obligation to report deposits exceeding certain threshold amounts to FinCEN. At least that's how it works in Canada, and we're known to model our Big Brother-style activities after our neighbour to the South.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0714e64d06233bbf500bca0aeeafe657",
"text": "\"The existing IRS guidance in the US related to bitcoin indicates it will be taxed as property. You'll sell your coins then when you file your taxes for that year you will indicate the dollar value that you sold as a capital gain with a $0 cost basis since you can't prove your initial cost. You can use a block chain explorer to get an idea of when the coins were transferred to your wallet to lay to rest any idea that someone paid you $1,000,000 for some sort of nefarious reason today. Prepare to be audited, I'd probably shop around for a local tax guy willing to prepare your return. Additionally, I probably wouldn't sell it all at once or even all in a single year. It's obvious but I think it's worth saying, there's no law against making money. You bought the equivalent of junk a number of years ago that, by some kind of magic, has a value today. You're capitalizing on the value increase. I don't think there's a reason to \"\"worry\"\" about the government.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "278761b17fa57982144a46c66491ce57",
"text": "Like-kind of exchanges have a list of requirements. The IRS has not issued formal guidance in the matter. I recommend to be aggressive and claim the exchange, while justifying it with a good analogy to prove good faith (and persuade the IRS official reading it the risk of losing in tax court would be to high). Worst case the IRS will attempt to reject the exchange, at which point you could still pony up to get rid of the problem, interest being the only real risk. For example: Past tax court rulings have stated that collectable gold coins are not like kind to gold bars, and unlike silver coins, but investment grade gold coins are like kind to gold bars. So you could use a justification like this: I hold Bitcoin to be like-kind to Litecoin, because they use the same fundamental technology with just a tweak in the math, as if exchanging different grades of gold bars, which has been approved by tax court ruling #xxxxx. Note that it doesn't matter whether any of this actually makes sense, it just has be reasonable enough for you to believe, and look like it is not worth pursuing to an overworked IRS official glancing at it. I haven't tried this yet, so up to now this is a guess, but it's a good enough guess in my estimation that I will be using it on some rather significant amounts next year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca4f820b9bdb5a53b055950641355db2",
"text": "Do not try to deposit piece wise. Either use the system in complete transparence, or do not use it at all. The fear of having your bank account frozen, even if you are in your rights, is justified. In any case, I don't advise you to put in bank before reaching IRS. Also keep all the proof that you indeed contacted them. (Recommended letter and copy of any form you submit to them) Be ready to also give those same documents to your bank to proove your good faith. If they are wrong, you'll be considered in bad faith until you can proove otherwise, without your bank account. Do not trust their good faith, they are not bad people, but very badly organized with too much power, so they put the burden of proof on you just because they can. If it is too burdensome for you then keep cash or go bitcoin. (but the learning curve to keep so much money in bitcoin secure against theft is high) You should declare it in this case anyway, but at least you don't have to fear having your money blocked arbitrarily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7272c31978e10ac0038691e7e9e1f605",
"text": "\"The only \"\"authoritative document\"\" issued by the IRS to date relating to Cryptocurrencies is Notice 2014-21. It has this to say as the first Q&A: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. That is to say, it should be treated as property like any other asset. Basis reporting the same as any other property would apply, as described in IRS documentation like Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses and Publication 551, Basis of Assets. You should be able to use the same basis tracking method as you would use for any other capital asset like stocks or bonds. Per Publication 550 \"\"How To Figure Gain or Loss\"\", You figure gain or loss on a sale or trade of property by comparing the amount you realize with the adjusted basis of the property. Gain. If the amount you realize from a sale or trade is more than the adjusted basis of the property you transfer, the difference is a gain. Loss. If the adjusted basis of the property you transfer is more than the amount you realize, the difference is a loss. That is, the assumption with property is that you would be using specific identification. There are specific rules for mutual funds to allow for using average cost or defaulting to FIFO, but for general \"\"property\"\", including individual stocks and bonds, there is just Specific Identification or FIFO (and FIFO is just making an assumption about what you're choosing to sell first in the absence of any further information). You don't need to track exactly \"\"which Bitcoin\"\" was sold in terms of exactly how the transactions are on the Bitcoin ledger, it's just that you bought x bitcoins on date d, and when you sell a lot of up to x bitcoins you specify in your own records that the sale was of those specific bitcoins that you bought on date d and report it on your tax forms accordingly and keep track of how much of that lot is remaining. It works just like with stocks, where once you buy a share of XYZ Corp on one date and two shares on another date, you don't need to track the movement of stock certificates and ensure that you sell that exact certificate, you just identify which purchase lot is being sold at the time of sale.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b4a5fff5ef3a98fcf333a137464c7af",
"text": "Deliberately breaking transactions into smaller units to avoid reporting requirements is called structuring and may attract the attention of the IRS and/or law enforcement agencies. I'm not sure what the specific laws are on structuring with respect to FBAR reporting requirements and/or electronic transfers (as opposed to cash transactions). However, there's been substantial recent publicity about cases where people had their assets seized simply because federal agents suspected they were trying to avoid reporting requirements (even if there was no hard evidence of this). It is safer not to risk it. Don't try to structure your transactions to avoid the reporting requirements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7cf03316171ccd1ef7f305ef2953a99",
"text": "Sure; you can deposit cash. A few notes apply: Does the source of cash need to be declared ? If you deposit more than $10,000 in cash or other negotiable instruments, you'll be asked to complete a form called a Currency Transaction Report (here's the US Government's guidance for consumers about this form). There's some very important information in that guidance document about structuring, which is a fairly serious crime that you can commit if you break up your deposits to avoid reporting. Don't do this. The linked document gives examples. Also don't refuse to make your deposit and walk away when presented with a CTR form. In addition, you are also required to report to Customs and Border Protection when you bring more than $10,000 in or out of the country. If you are caught not doing so, the money may be seized and you could be prosecuted criminally. Many countries have similar requirements, often with different dollar amounts, so it's important to make sure you comply with their laws as well. The information from this reporting goes to the government and is used to enforce finance and tax laws, but there's nothing wrong or illegal about depositing cash as long as you don't evade the reporting requirements. You will not need to declare precisely where the cash comes from, but they will want the information required on the forms. Is it taxable ? Simply depositing cash into your bank account is not taxable. Receiving some forms of income, whether as cash or a bank deposit, is taxable. If you seem to have a large amount of unexplained cash income, it is possible an IRS audit will want an explanation from you as to where it comes from and why it isn't taxable. In short, if the income was taxable, you should have paid taxes on it whether or not you deposit it in a bank account. What is the limit of the deposit ? There is no government limit. An individual bank may have their own limit and/or may charge a fee for larger deposits. You could always call the bank and ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc29f3df7b49d4faef1a5644c2244382",
"text": "It's not enough just to check if your order doesn't exceed 10% of the 20 day average volume. I'll quote from my last answer about NSCC illiquid charges: You may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. The NSCC issues a charge to the clearing firm if in aggregate, their orders exceed the limits, and the clearing firm usually passes these charges on to the broker(s) that placed the orders. Your broker may or may not pass the charges through to you; they may simply charge you significantly higher commissions for trading OTC securities and use those to cover the charges. Since checking how the volume of your orders compares to the average past volume, ask your broker about their policies on trading OTC stocks. They may tell you that you won't face illiquid charges because the higher cost of commissions covers these, or they may give you specifics on how to verify that your orders won't incur such charges. Only your broker can answer this with certainty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dda835616037c706767369d1efac27a",
"text": "\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d50c7fdfce08325fca77e8f189c16e91",
"text": "It's important to note that the US is also the country that taxes its expats when they live abroad, and forces foreign banks to disclose assets of US citizens. Americans are literally the property of their government. America is a tax farm and its citizens can't leave the farm. Wherever you go, you are owned. And that now appears to be true of your Bitcoin as well. Even if you spend 50 years outside the USA, your masters want a piece of what you earn. Land of the Free.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a985523a3761011f9ebda6ecf8d6809e
|
How to get started with savings, paying off debt, and retirement?
|
[
{
"docid": "c3f562533bf3c3b4127193481644ff96",
"text": "\"The word you are looking for is \"\"budget\"\" You can't pay off debt if you are spending more than you earn. Therefore, start a budget that you both work on at the same time, and both agree 100% with. Evaluate your progress on that budget on a regular basis. From your question, you understand what your obligations are and you seem to manage money pretty well. Therefore your key to retirement is just the ticket you need. As newlyweds, you both have to be VERY aware that the main reason a marriage fails in the US is money issues. Starting out with a groundwork where you both agree to your budget and can keep it will help you a lot in your upcoming life. Then, for some details Sprinkle your charitable donations anywhere in the list where you feel it is important.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82daa1f2b5e84fc56e5a9e194920ab2e",
"text": "You have a small emergency fund. Good! Be open about your finances with each other. No secrets, except around gift-giving holidays. Pay off the debts ASAP. Don't accumulate more consumer debt after it's paid off. I wouldn't contribute anything more to the 401k beyond what gives you a maximum match. Free money is free money, but there are lots of strings attached to tax-advantaged accounts. Be sure you understand what you're investing in. If your only option is an annuity for the 401k, learn what that is. Retire into something. Don't just retire from something. (Put another way: Don't retire.) Don't wait until you're old to figure out what you want to retire into. Save like crazy before you have kids. It's much harder afterwards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0319691a2af5af818b96dcf17f13552",
"text": "I agree with the other answers here. You need to pay off your debts first, so that you can take the money you would have been spending on debt payments and make retirement contributions instead. The longer they hang around, the more you pay in interest and the more they are a risk to you. Imagine if you or your spouse were laid off, which is better scenario: having to pay for your necessities plus debts or your necessities alone? Just focus on one goal at a time, and you will do well. And the best way for you and your new spouse is to have the same financial goals and a huge part of that agreeing on a budget each month and being flexible. Don't use it to control your spouse, you each have a vote. I have not used Vangaurd, but have heard good things about them. I would do some research before investing with them or anyone else for that matter. What you want to find when it comes to investing is someone with the heart of a teacher, not a product peddler. If you have someone who is pushing financial products, without explaining (A) how they work, and (B) how they fit your situation, then RUN AWAY and find someone else who will do those two things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "358304736342d36c627f959472de9729",
"text": "Communicate. I would recommend taking a course together on effective communications, and I would also suggest taking a course on budgeting and family financial planning. You need to be able to effectively communicate your financial plans and goals, your financial actions, and learn to both be honest and open with your partner. You also need to be certain that you come to an agreement. The first step is to draft a budget that you both agree to follow. The following is a rough outline that you could use to begin. There are online budgeting tools, and a spreadsheet where you can track planned versus actuals may better inform your decisions. Depending upon your agreed priorities, you may adjust the following percentages, Essentials (<50% of net income) Financial (>20%) Lifestyle (<30%) - this is your discretionary income, where you spend on the things you want Certain expense categories are large and deserve special advice. Try to limit your housing costs to 25% of your income, unless you live in a high-cost/rent area (where you might budget as high as 35%). Limit your expenses for vehicles below 10% of income. And expensive vehicle might be budgeted (partly) from Lifestyle. Limiting your auto payment to 5% of your income may be a wise choice (when possible). Some families spend $200-300/month on cable TV, and $200-300/month on cellphones. These are Lifestyle decisions, and those on constrained budgets might examine the value from those expenses against the benefit. Dining out can be a budget buster, and those on constrained budgets might consider paying less for convenience, and preparing more meals at home. An average family might spend 8-10% of their income on food. Once you have a budget, you want to handle the following steps, Many of the steps are choices based upon your specific priorities.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6435f24f13a0fde33b0d612aa3ee4b3d",
"text": "Firstly, make sure annual income exceeds annual expenses. The difference is what you have available for saving. Secondly, you should have tiers of savings. From most to least liquid (and least to most rewarding): The core of personal finance is managing the flow of money between these tiers to balance maximizing return on savings with budget constraints. For example, insurance effectively allows society to move money from savings to stocks and bonds. And a savings account lets the bank loan out a bit of your money to people buying assets like homes. Note that the above set of accounts is just a template from which you should customize. You might want to add in an FSA or HSA, extra loan payments, or taxable brokerage accounts, depending on your cash flow, debt, and tax situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e20bda2b9348c44c284bb75dc8e4a975",
"text": "If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This. Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year). Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement. But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills. If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting. Get this under control, by any means necessary. New job/career? Change priorities/expectations? Cut expenses? Live to your budget? Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities). Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for). Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing. You should be maxing that contribution out every year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5d895efa21e2ef274c014d4641e24f5",
"text": "I'd suggest you start with a budget that includes savings, the minimum payment for those loans, estimates for recurring expenses, entertainment, and lifestyle items. That will let you baseline how much money you need for the lifestyle you want to have. Then apply your income to that model and whatever is left distribute out to your loans starting with the highest risk (not forgivable in bankruptcy/would make you homeless if you don't pay) and highest interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a3800d6cf5882f6411dbb8e4126997b",
"text": "\"The answer is, there are a lot of answers! It always seems so daunting to start saving when you're living paycheck to paycheck and anticipate more bills on the way (kids are expensive!!). Start small, and make it automatic if you can. If you can take $25 out of every paycheck and put it into a savings account, and do this automatically using your bank's Bill Pay system, that will go a long way. It's about setting up a new habit for yourself, and increasing as you can. One way I've heard it phrased is \"\"Pay yourself first\"\". Don't set unrealistic expectations for yourself, either. You need to start building a savings account to cover emergencies, not just future purchases. If something happens and you can't get a paycheck for a week, a month, 2 months, how will you pay your bills? Set up a savings account just for that purpose and don't touch it unless it's a true emergency. There are several banks out there that will let you set up multiple savings accounts and mark them for specific purposes, like CapitalOne's 360 accounts. Set one up for the emergency account that gets your automatic per-paycheck deposit, then set up another one for \"\"fun money\"\" or \"\"new home fund\"\" or whatever else you want to save up for. Starting the savings process is hard, no doubt about it. You need to learn how to budget with the money you have after \"\"paying yourself first\"\". But the important part is to stick with it. Consider your savings account as another \"\"mandatory\"\" utility. You have to pay it $25/mo or risk...I don't know...a smack on the back of the head. If you wait until the end of the month to see what you have left after everything else, you'll find you don't have anything left. If you can set it up through your bank so when you get your paycheck it automatically puts $25 into a savings account, then you'll never have that $25 burning a hole in your pocket. If your paychecks aren't direct deposit, and you're physically cashing them when you receive them, then tell the bank teller to put $25 into your savings account. You can do it! Make sure your wife is on board and you communicate the importance of setting up a savings account and work together to make it happen. Be patient, and realize that $25 may seem like a trivial amount to put away now, but after 24 paychecks (1 year depending on pay schedule), that's $600! (Plus interest but rates are too low now to worth noting that).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb86b8366e07682b4dbd0b23f812c833",
"text": "First priority is to set up an emergency fund of 6 months expenses. If you're going to be making ~30k a year, then that means you'll probably want to put away about 10k of it in a savings account or something else similarly liquid. After that, paying off your student loans probably makes the most sense depending on the rate. My general rule of thumb (and I'm sure others will disagree with me) is to pay off debts that are >=6.0% first before investing. Paying off debt is a risk-free return on your money, which makes it pretty valuable. It'll let you direct more of your monthly income into retirement savings, too. After that, open up a Roth IRA. You can put a maximum of $5500 in it for this year. I like Betterment, but Wealthfront has a similar service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a87e909ce967530a0f83baa6241eedd0",
"text": "\"I can understand your nervousness being 40 and no retirement savings. Its understandable especially given your parents. Before going further, I would really recommend the books and seminars on Love and Respect. The subject matter is Christian based, but it based upon a lot of secular research from the University of Washington and some other colleges. It sounds like to me, this is more of a relationship issue than a money issue. For the first step I would focus on the positive. The biggest benefit you have is: Your husband is willing to work! Was he lazy, there would be a whole different set of issues. You should thank him for this. More positives are that you don't have any credit card debt, you only have one car payment (not two), and that you are paying additional payments on each. I'd prefer that you had no car payment. But your situation is not horrible. So how do you improve your situation? In my opinion getting your husband on board would be the first priority. Ask him if he would like to get the car paid off as fast as possible, or, building an emergency fund? Pick one of those to focus on, and do it together. Having an emergency fund of 3 to 6 months of expense is a necessary precursor to investing, anyway so you from the limited info in your post you are not ready to pour money into your 401K. Have you ever asked what his vision is for his family financially? Something like: \"\"Honey you care for us so wonderfully, what is your vision for me and our children? Where do you see us in 5, 10 and 20 years?\"\" I cannot stress enough how this is a relationship issue, not a math issue. While the problems manifests themselves in your balance sheet they are only a symptom. Attempting to cure the symptom will likely result in resentment for both of you. There is only one financial author that focuses on relationships and their effect on finances: Dave Ramsey. Pick up a copy of The Total Money Makeover, do something nice for him, and then ask him to read it. If he does, do something else nice for him and then ask him what he thinks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c4ff7b7c5d61828a76f1e9edafbbe34",
"text": "\"I live near historic Concord, Massachusetts, and frequently drive past Walden Pond. I'm reminded of Henry David Thoreau's words, \"\"Simplify, simplify, simplify.\"\" In my opinion, fewer is better. 2 checkbooks? I don't see how that makes budgeting any easier. The normal set of expenses are easily kept as one bucket, one account. The savings 2&3 accounts can also be combined and tracked if you really want to think of them as separate accounts. Now, when you talk about 'Retirement' that can be in tax-wise retirement accounts, e.g. 401(k), IRA, etc. or post tax regular brokerage accounts. In our situation, the Schwab non-retirement account was able to handle emergency (as money market funds) along with vacation/rainy day, etc, in CDs of different maturities. As an old person, I remember CDs at 10% or higher, so leaving money in lower interest accounts wasn't good. Cash would go to CDs at 1-5 year maturities to maximize interest, but keep money maturing every 6-9 months. Even with the goal of simplifying, my wife and I each have a 401(k), an IRA, and a Roth IRA, I also have an inherited Roth, and I manage my teen's Roth and brokerage accounts. That's 9 accounts right there. No way to reduce it. To wrap it up, I'd go back to the first 4 you listed, and use the #4 checking attached to the broker account to be the emergency fund. Now you're at 3. Any higher granularity can be done with a spreadsheet. Think of it this way - the day you see the house you love, will you not be so willing to give up that year's vacation?\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3ac3834ecfdcdd0f6bcca73ae4e4620",
"text": "First: great job on getting it together. This is good for your family in any respect I can think of. This is a life long process and skill, but it will pay off for you and yours if you work on it. Your problem is that you don't seem to know where you money goes. You can't decide how whacky your expenses are until you know what they are. Looking at just your committed expenses and ignore the other stuff might be the problem here. You state that you feel you live modestly, but you need to be able to measure it completely to decide. I would suggest an online tool like mint.com (if you can get it in your country) because it will go back for 90 days and get transactions for you. If you primarily work in cash, this isn't helpful, but based on your credit card debt I am hoping not. (Although, a cash lifestyle would be good if you tend to overspend.) Take the time and sort your transactions into categories. Don't setup a budget, just sort them out. I like to limit the number of categories for clarity sake, especially to start. Don't get too crazy, and don't get too detailed at first. If you buy a magazine at the grocery store, just call it groceries. Once you know what you spend, then you can setup a budget for the categories. If somethings are important, create new categories. If one category is a problem, then break it down and find the specific issue. The key is that you budget not be more than you earn but also representative of what you spend. Follow up with mint every other day or every weekend so the categorization is a quick and easy process. Put it on your iPhone and do it at every lunch break. Share the information with your spouse and talk about it often.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1313281ff8064d868e5ab7c3094bc434",
"text": "It all depends on your priorities, but if it were me I'd work to get rid of that debt as your first priority based on a few factors: I might shift towards the house if you think you can save enough to avoid PMI, as the total savings would probably be more in aggregate if you plan on buying a house anyway with less than 20% down. Of course, all this is lower priority than funding your retirement at least up to the tax advantaged and/or employer matched maximums, but it sounds like you have that covered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc96aae030cc1ee5f74d3b74a1e85dcd",
"text": "Other answers here cover some of the basics, but this is also a great time to start establishing a credit history and developing good financial habits to carry throughout your life. In addition to opening a free checking account with the local credit union, establish an overdraft line of credit on that account. Never close this account or this line of credit as it will work to increase the average age of your accounts when you apply for credit later in life. If you are disciplined with your use of credit cards, you may also want to apply for a low limit credit card through the same credit union for the same purpose as above. Never carry a balance on this card, but make minor purchases with it each month, never more than 20% of the balance, maybe just buy gas with it. Start tracking all of your spending and make a monthly budget. There are a lot of online tools that make this very easy. Establishing the habit now will help you make informed financial decisions in the future. Open a Roth IRA and put at least 10% of your money away for retirement. In the future your income may increase enough to put you in the 25% tax bracket. If that ever happens, open a Regular IRA and put the money there instead. Also when you have employers that offer 401k matching do the same thing with a Roth 401k account. Keep your money invested in a low cost index fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8133d6a9ecbe9ede5f95a4d892211277",
"text": "Your plan sounds quite sound to me. I think that between the choices of [$800 for Loans, $300 for Retirement] and [$1100 for loans], both are good choices and you aren't going to go wrong either way. Some of the factors you might want to consider: I like your retirement savings choices - I myself use the admiral version of VOO, plus a slightly specialized but still large ETF that allows me to do a bit of shifting. Having something that's at least a bit counter-market can be helpful for balancing (so something that will be going up some when the market overall is down some); I wouldn't necessarily do bonds at your age, but international markets are good for that, or a stock ETF that's more stable than the overall market. If you're using Vanguard, look at the minimums for buying Admiral shares (usually a few grand) and aim to get those if possible, as they have significantly lower fees - though VOO seems to pretty much tie the admiral version (VFIAX) so in that case it may not matter so much. As far as the target retirement funds, you can certainly do those, but I prefer not to; they have somewhat higher (though for Vanguard not crazy high) expense ratios. Realistically you can do the same yourself quite easily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f1640e23ad8d51220d1245790777b31",
"text": "First, congratulations on even thinking about investing while you are still young! Before you start investing, I'd suggest you pay off your cc balance if you have any. The logic is simple: if you invest and make say 8% in the market but keep paying 14% on your cc balance, you aren't really saving. Have a good supply of emergency fund that is liquid (high yielding savings bank like a credit union. I can recommend Alliant). Start small with investing. Educate yourself on the markets before getting in. Ignorance can be expensive. Learn about IRA (opening an IRA and investing in the markets have (good)tax implications. I didn't do this when I was young and I regret that now) Learn what is 'wash sales' and 'tax loss harvesting' before putting money in the market. Don't start out by investing in individual stocks. Learn about indexing. What I've give you are pointers. Google (shameless plug: you can read my blog, where I do touch upon most of these topics) for the terms I've mentioned. That'll steer you in the right direction. Good luck and stay prosperous!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54d1be2e961ce9b013531159007f3428",
"text": "\"There are two places to start, the spending side and the income side. Many (in the personal finance blogosphere) have pointed out that frugal has its limits. You can only live so cheaply, eat so little, turn the heat down so much. Your income and your wife's income has no limit. Not to put this all in her lap, but why isn't she working? Between the two of you, there are hundreds of things you can consider doing that will generate a few hundred dollars a week extra income. You said \"\"we can live fairly comfortably paycheck-to-paycheck and routinely put some money into savings,\"\" but you are still paying off debt, and don't have the emergency fund to handle the routine things that come around on a regular basis. The difference between breaking even, and making extra money, is the ability to fund that account. It's important to have a defined plan to pay the remaining debt, and build your fund in as short a time period as you can. As Bren stated, you need to plan for the unexpected. I don't know what appliance will go this year or what day it will break, I just know something will happen and I have the funds to pay for it. The extra income is vital to a workable plan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35f7e9bbe9ff41aa6e46cb264ed40e26",
"text": "I understand that, but there are so many mitigating factors now that I don't feel safe. It's more like thinking that airplanes are safe, but if you're walking through the airport and you notice the pilot at the bar and them see him with his shirt untucked as he bumps his head getting into the airplane you might not get onto that airplane. I wouldn't give this advice to someone in their 20s, but we are in our 50s. We have enough to live on comfortably with savings and my husband's pension and social security and passive income from the rental. It's just not worth the risk. As it is I am retired and can travel and eat whatever I want whenever I want. And the rental property is our hedge against inflation. I just see no reason to risk that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
037ba714b4fb2cfec53348d0e94d68dd
|
Why do new car loans, used car loans, and refinanced loans have different rates and terms?
|
[
{
"docid": "b31d9b98a4891e6facb0202448d55049",
"text": "\"New car loans, used car loans, and refinances have different rates because they have different risks associated with them, different levels of ability to recoup losses if there is a default, and different customer profiles. (I'm assuming third party lender for all of these questions, not financing the dealer arranges, as that has other considerations built into it.) A new car loan is both safer to some extent (as the car is a \"\"known\"\" risk, having no risk of damage/etc. prior to purchase), but also harder to recoup losses (because new cars immediately devalue significantly, while used cars keep more of their value). Thus the APRs are a little different; in general for the same amount a new car will be a bit lower APR, but of course used car loans are typically lower amounts. Refinance is also different; customer profile wise, the customer who is refinancing in these times is likely someone who is a higher risk (as why are they asking for a loan when they're mostly paid off their car?). Otherwise it's fairly similar to a used car, though probably a bit newer than the average used car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "067b00eeae4c7564c16d7388d5bed468",
"text": "According to AutoTrader, there are many different reasons, but here are three: New cars have a better resale value and it's easier to predict its resale value in case you default on the loan and they repossess the car. Lenders that are through auto makers can use different incentives for getting you to buy a new car. Used car financing is usually through other banks. People with higher credit scores tend to buy new cars, and therefore can get a lower rate because of their higher credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f974cda43eb4fee7fd6b2844f12a5fd7",
"text": "\"There are normally three key factors that define different kinds of loans, these factors affect the risk that the lender takes on and so the interest rate. The interest rate on any loan is linked to market interest rates; the lender shouldn't be able to receive a higher rate of interest for lending the money at no risk, and the level of risk that the lender believes the borrower to have. The three features of a particular loan are: These reduce the risk of complete or total non-payment (default) of the principal or any missed interest payments. Taken in order: Amortising Here some of the monthly payment pays a proportion of the underlying principal of the loan. This reduces the amount outstanding and so reduces the capacity for default on the full principal as part of the principal has already been paid. Security In a secured loan there is an asset such as a car, house, boat, gold, shares etc. that has a value on resale that is held against the loan. The lender may repossess the security if the borrower defaults and recover their money that way. This also acts as a \"\"stick\"\" using the loss of property to convince the borrower that it is better to keep paying the interest. The future value of the security will be taken into account when deciding how much this reduces the interest rate. Guarantor A guarantor to a loan guarantees that the borrower will repay the loan and interest in full and, if the borrower does not fulfil that obligation, the lender is able to seek legal redress from the guarantor for the borrower's debts. Each of these reduce the risk of the loan as detailed and so reduce the interest rate. The interest rate, then, is made up of three parts; the market interest rate (m) plus the interest rate premium for the borrower's own credit worthiness (c) minus the value of the features of the loan that help to reduce risk (l). The interest rate of the loan (r) is categorised as: r = m + c - l. Credit ratings themselves are an inexact science and even when two lenders are looking at the same credit score for the same person they will give a different interest rate premium. This is mostly for business reasons, and the shape of their loan book, that are too tedious to go through here. All in all the different types of loan give flexibility at the cost of a different interest rate. If you don't want the chance of your car being repossessed you don't take a secured loan, if you have a family member who can help and doesn't mind taking on your risk take a guaranteed loan.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "042b71b15063e51189ae00318215f078",
"text": "If it's possible in your case to get such a loan, then sure, providing the loan fees aren't in excess of the interest rate difference. Auto loans don't have the fees mortgages do, but check the specific loan you're looking at - it may have some fees, and they'd need to be lower than the interest rate savings. Car loans can be tricky to refinance, because of the value of a used car being less than that of a new car. How much better your credit is likely determines how hard this would be to get. Also, how much down payment you put down. Cars devalue 20% or so instantly (a used car with 5 miles on it tends to be worth around 80% of a new car's cost), so if you put less than 20% down, you may be underwater - meaning the principal left on the loan exceeds the value of the car (and so you wouldn't be getting a fully secured loan at that point). However, if your loan amount isn't too high relative to the value of the car, it should be possible. Check out various lenders in advance; also check out non-lender sites for advice. Edmunds.com has some of this laid out, for example (though they're an industry-based site so they're not truly unbiased). I'd also recommend using this to help you pay off the loan faster. If you do refinance to a lower rate, consider taking the savings and sending it to the lender - i.e., keeping your payment the same, just lowering the interest charge. That way you pay it off faster.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afcc0a968d643cff64bd0cfd4ba171b7",
"text": "I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more.",
"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": "3b5300c8ffa3ace3ae49d6d1404e6652",
"text": "\"A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not \"\"new debt\"\"; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks. It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself \"\"on the hook\"\" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a \"\"loan modification\"\" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a \"\"streamlining\"\" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these \"\"toxic assets\"\". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0abf2d4619c289bdab3c1e7ba705521d",
"text": "\"A repossessed automobile will have lost some value from sale price, but it's not valueless. They market \"\"title loans\"\" to people without good credit on this basis so its a reasonably well understood risk pool.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc69d3f6e641e3921c55c1180b6158e7",
"text": "\"Following up on @petebelford's answer: If you can find a less expensive loan, you can refinance the car and reduce the total interest you pay that way. Or, if your loan permits it (not all do; talk to the bank which holds the loan and,/or read the paperwork you didn't look at), you may be able to make additional payments to reduce the principal of the loan, which will reduce the amount and duration of the loan and could significantly reduce the total interest paid ... at the cost of requiring you pay more each month, or pay an additional sum up front. Returning the car is not an option. A new car loses a large portion of its value the moment you drive it off the dealer's lot and it ceases to be a \"\"new\"\" car. You can't return it. You can sell it as a recent model used car, but you will lose money on the deal so even if you use that to pay down the loan you will still owe the bank money. Given the pain involved that way, you might as well keep the car and just try to refinance or pay it off. Next time, read and understand all the paperwork before signing. (If you had decided this was a mistake within 3 days of buying, you might have been able to take advantage of \"\"cooling down period\"\" laws to cancel the contract, if such laws exist in your area. A month later is much too late.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ba0904c027d73e4cfead5e90c27a3d6",
"text": "In addition to the other answers, also consider this: Federal bond interest rates are nowhere near the rates you mentioned for short term bonds. They are less than 1% unless you're talking about terms of 5-10 years, and the rates you mentioned are for 10 to 30-years terms. Dealer financed car loans are usually 2-5 years (the shorter the term - the lower the rate). In addition, as said by others, you pay more than just the interest if you take a car loan from the dealer directly. But your question is also valid for banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "374f98708af43b789ea27528fbcb43e0",
"text": "\"I think the risk involved with the \"\"fund gaining a larger rate of return\"\" is probably priced in. Why would the bank take the risk on you with a car loan when it could put it in the same fund you're talking about and make more money?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d280f9654cc7e6f9132494b19bc1d4f",
"text": "Not long after college in my new job I bought a used car with payments, I have never done that since. I just don't like having a car payment. I have bought every car since then with cash. You should never borrow money to buy a car There are several things that come into play when buying a car. When you are shopping with cash you tend to be more conservative with your purchases look at this Study on Credit card purchases. A Dunn & Bradstreet study found that people spend 12-18% more when using credit cards than when using cash. And McDonald's found that the average transaction rose from $4.50 to $7.00 when customers used plastic instead of cash. I would bet you if you had $27,000 dollars cash in your hand you wouldn't buy that car. You'd find a better deal, and or a cheaper car. When you finance it, it just doesn't seem to hurt as bad. Even though it's worse because now you are paying interest. A new car is just insanity unless you have a high net worth, at least seven figures. Your $27,000 car in 5 years will be worth about $6500. That's like striking a match to $340 dollars a month, you can't afford to lose that much money. Pay Cash If you lose your job, get hurt, or any number of things that can cost you money or reduce your income, it's no problem with a paid for car. They don't repo paid for cars. You have so much more flexibility when you don't have payments. You mention you have 10k in cash, and a $2000 a month positive cash flow. I would find a deal on a 8000 - 9000 car I would not buy from a dealer*. Sell the car you have put that money with the positive cash flow and every other dime you can get at your student loans and any other debt you have, keep renting cheap keep the college lifestyle (broke) until you are completely out of debt. Then I would save for a house. Finally I would read this Dave Ramsey book, if I would have read this at your age, I would literally be a millionaire by now, I'm 37. *Don't buy from a dealer Find a private sale car that you can get a deal on, pay less than Kelly Blue Book. Pay a little money $50 - 75 to have an automotive technician to check it out for you and get a car fax, to make sure there are no major problems. I have worked in the automotive industry for 20 + years and you rarely get a good deal from a dealer. “Everything popular is wrong.” Oscar Wilde",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70c5f0d9cf31a5765db3b0f253f4e554",
"text": "I worked in auto finance years ago, what dealers tend to do in refinance the negative value of the customer current car to the new one. So if a car is worth 30k they may finance it for 35k. Finance company will do as not to lose the dealer and customer is happy to get a new car. I had one customer call on a car he financed for 85k, car brand new was worth 70k. Told me how he was looking to pay out the loan and go to the competition for better rates. Before offering anything I did a quick value check and no way was it worth it for us to reduce the rates. Told him good luck and he needed to pay X amount, he asked me if I'm not going to offer a better deal, I told him no. He blew up telling me the dealer told him to call 6 mouths later and the financial company would reduce the rates if he asked for a payout. Customer also had a car that dropped its value like no tomorrow, so it book value was around 60k. So over the refinance limit. 6 mouths later get a call from collection, telling me just a heads up this guy's cars was sold at the auction as he couldn't make repayments for 30k. Guy was also told by the dealer he could just hand the car back in but wasn't told he still needed to pay back the difference in the loan once he did. My god some people had no clue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc84cf9347d8b4cf8bdb537eee046017",
"text": "This is because short term debt needs to be rolled over to finance the long term project and so, when interest rates rise they will be refinanced at a higher interest rate. This means that it will end up costing more than if the company had taken out a long term loan at the lower rate. A long term project implies that the beneficial (incoming) cashflows will be long term but with short term financing the debt will come payable sooner which is why it needs rolling over; any beneficial cashflows are not enough to cover the debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba52e2de758b83fa4bbace296bc92660",
"text": "\"Yikes! Not always is this the case... For example, you purchased a new car with an interest rate of 5-6%or even higher... Why pay that much interest throughout the loan. Sometimes trading in the vehicle at a lower rate will get you a lower or sometimes the same payment even with an upgraded (newer/safer technology) design. The trade off? When going from New to New, the car may depreciate faster than what you would save from the interest savings on a new loan. Sometimes the tactics used to get you back to the dealership could be a little harsh, but if you do your research long before you inquire, you may come out on the winning end. Look at what you're paying in interest and consider it a \"\"re-finance\"\" of your car but taking advantage of the manufacturer's low apr special to off-set the costs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9874f6737c29c6ccdcf50be800ba0095",
"text": "You need to do the maths exactly. The cost of buying a car in cash and using a loan is not the same. The dealership will often get paid a significant amount of money if you get a loan through them. On the other hand, they may have a hold over you if you need their loan (no cash, and the bank won't give you money). One strategy is that while you discuss the price with the dealer, you indicate that you are going to get a loan through them. And then when you've got the best price for the car, that's when you tell them it's cash. Remember that the car dealer will do what's best for their finances without any consideration of what's good for you, so you are perfectly in your rights to do the same to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc5d2f7ab87c363b8359dcfbff796599",
"text": "The key word you are looking for is that you want to refinance the loan at a lower rate. Tell banks that and ask what they can offer you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e814218015e61c473d66135a4cfd495",
"text": "I agree with the deposit part. But if you are buying a new car, the loan term should meet the warranty term. Assuming you know you won't exceed the mileage limits, it's a car with only maintainence costs and the repayment cost at that point.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3215e67810b24236d08f521b0f815f05
|
What did John Templeton mean when he said that the four most dangerous words in investing are: ‘this time it’s different'?
|
[
{
"docid": "5251f5c2cb3094dab1305d925471dd86",
"text": "\"Essentially, he means \"\"one ignores history at their own peril\"\". We often hear people arguing that \"\"the old rules no longer apply\"\". Whether it be to valuations, borrowing, or any of the other common metrics, to ignore the lessons of the past is to invite disaster. History shows us that major crises in the markets usually occur when the old rules are ignored and people believe that current exceptional market conditions are justified by special circumstances.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8622b98765f45cfe577ed689ab53af2",
"text": "\"This refers to the faulty idea that the stock market will behave differently than it has in the past. For example, in the late 1990s, internet stocks rose to ridiculous heights in price, to be followed soon after with the Dot-Com Bubble crash. In the future, it's likely that there will be another such bubble with another hot stock - we just don't know what kind. Saying that \"\"this time it will be different\"\" could mean that you expect this bubble not to burst when, historically, that is never the case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e5330dace41924c1d1d905a21fb010e",
"text": "\"It's a statement that seems to be true about our tendency to believe we won't make the same mistake twice, even though we do, and that somehow what's occurring in the present is completely different, even when the underlying fundamentals of the situation may be nearly identical. It's a form of self-delusion and, sometimes, mass-delusion, and it has been a major contributing factor to many of our worst financial disasters. If you look at every housing bubble, for instance, we examine the aftermath, put new regulations and procedures into place, theoretically to prevent it from happening again, and then move forward. When the cycle starts to repeat itself, we ignore the signals, telling ourselves, \"\"oh, that can't happen again -- this time it's different.\"\" When investors begin to ignore the warning signs because they think the current situation is somehow totally different and therefore there will be a different outcome than the last disaster, that's when things actually do go bad. The 2008 housing crisis was caused by the same essential forces that brought about similar (albeit smaller scale) housing disasters in the 80's and 90's -- greed caused banks and other participants in the housing sector to make loans they knew were no good (an oversimplification to be sure, but apt nonetheless), and eventually the roof caved in on the market. In 2008, the essential dynamics were the same, but everyone had convinced themselves that the markets were more sophisticated and could never allow things like that to happen again. So, everyone told themselves this was different, and they dove into the markets headlong, ignoring all of the warning signs along the way that clearly told the story of what was coming had anyone bothered to notice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b8cc723454e494712174748761f537a",
"text": "\"There's an elephant in the room that no one is addressing: Suckers. Usually when there's a bubble, many people are fully aware that its a bubble. \"\"This time its different\"\" is a sales pitch to the outsiders. It the dotcom boom for example a lot of people knew that the P/E was ridiculous but bought objectively valueless tech stocks with the idea of unloading them later to even bigger fools. People view it like the children's game musical chairs: as long as I'm not standing when the music ends some other sucker gets left holding the bag. But once you get that first hit of easy money, its sooo tempting to keep playing the game. Sometimes, if it lasts long enough, you start to drink your own kool-aid: gee maybe it really is different this time. The best way to win a crooked game is not to play*. *Just in case someone thinks I'm advising against the stock market in general, I'm not: I'm advocating not buying stocks that you know are worthless with the hope of unloading them on some other sucker.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6be9ede1c3f854caa8cfd3b0e63ec2b6",
"text": "\"A brief review of the financial collapses in the last 30 years will show that the following events take place in a fairly typical cycle: Overuse of that innovation (resulting in inadequate supply to meet demand, in most cases) Inadequate capacity in regulatory oversight for the new volume of demand, resulting in significant unregulated activity, and non-observance of regulations to a greater extent than normal Confusion regarding shifting standards and regulations, leading to inadequate regulatory reviews and/or lenient sanctions for infractions, in turn resulting in a more aggressive industry \"\"Gaming\"\" of investment vehicles, markets and/or buyers to generate additional demand once the market is saturated \"\"Chickens coming home to roost\"\" - A breakdown in financial stability, operational accuracy, or legality of the actions of one or more significant players in the market, leading to one or more investigations A reduction in demand due to the tarnished reputation of the instrument and/or market players, leading to an anticipation of a glut of excess product in the market \"\"Cold feet\"\" - Existing customers seeking to dump assets, and refusing to buy additional product in the pipeline, resulting in a glut of excess product \"\"Wasteland\"\" - Illiquid markets of product at collapsed prices, cratering of associated portfolio values, retirees living below subsistence incomes Such investment bubbles are not limited to the last 30 years, of course; there was a bubble in silver prices (a 700% increase through one year, 1979) when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the market, followed by a collapse on Silver Thursday in 1980. The \"\"poster child\"\" of investment bubbles is the Tulip Mania that gripped the Netherlands in the early 1600's, in which a single tulip bulb was reported to command a price 16 times the annual salary of a skilled worker. The same cycle of events took place in each of these bubbles as well. Templeton's caution is intended to alert new (especially younger) players in the market that these patterns are doomed to repeat, and that market cycles cannot be prevented or eradicated; they are an intrinsic effect of the cycles of supply and demand that are not in synch, and in which one or both are being influenced by intermediaries. Such influences have beneficial effects on short-term profits for the players, but adverse effects on the long-term viability of the market's profitability for investors who are ill-equipped to shed the investments before the trouble starts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "248b6a9cef27acb33e66c19d5dad5907",
"text": "To play devil’s advocate to much of what has been written before, it's also worth noting that this is quite an important quote for a sort of reverse reason to what has been discussed before us, that of that fact that virtually every economic situation is different. As it's such a reflexive problem, each and every set of exact circumstances is always different from before. Technology radically changes, monetary policy and economic thinking shift, social needs and market expectations change and thus change the very fabric of markets as they do. It's only in its most basic miss projections of growth that economics repeats, and much like warfare, has constant shifts that radically change the core assumptions about it and do create completely new circumstances that we have to struggle to deal with predicting. People betting on the endless large scale mechanised warfare between western powers continuing post nuclear weapons would have been very, very wrong for example. That time it actually was different, and this actually happens with surprisingly often in finance in ways people quickly bury in the memories and adopt to the new norm. Remember when public ownership of stock wasn't a thing? When bonds didn't exist? No mortgages? Pre insurance? These are all inventions and changes that did change the world forever and were genuinely different and have been ever since, creating huge structural changes in economies, growth rates and societies interactions. As the endless aim of the game is predicting growth well, we often see people/groups over extend on one new thing, and/or under extend on another as they struggle to model these shifts and step changes. Talking as if the fact that people do this consistently as if it is some kind of obvious thing we can easily learn from (or easily take advantage of) in the context of such a vague and complex problem could be argued to be highly naïve and largely useless. This time it is different. Last time it was too.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "19225d0959de97f5bf2d6855eb77f19a",
"text": ">At some point you can no longer take on more debt even if you wanted to. If global and domestic investors think you are going to be a risky investment then they cut you off. The *issuer* of a currency can't be cut off from spending in the currency they issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77e3b89127f83c9de24b0f431df4cc89",
"text": "This is why I am amazed that people are saying this time the market is different; it will only correct itself; we won't see another crash like '08. When in reality, all of the data is pointing to a bubble that is about to burst worst than '08.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60831e5ae1c8012fed7a865058b09965",
"text": "One of the funnier parts of the finance crisis was seeing just how awful Morgenson could be. Every time she wrote something dumb, she'd manage to one-up herself the next time. It was impressive. (which made me remember that [Calculated Risk even had a tag](http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/search/label/Picking%20On%20Poor%20Gretchen) for posts about her awful stories.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9825521e8c224412f832211f9404e01c",
"text": "> The stock market measures individual companies' ups and downs, right? Not precisely, no. If anything it measures... 1. Information 2. Risk and Riskiness 3. Market Sentiment > Perhaps it could even gain over my life. One would assume that this would be a relatively flat graph, with little if any trend, and occasional spikes upwards and downwards. It'd also be subject to caps and floors, unlike the market which is only floored (at 0). > I don't know if anyone could come up with a kind of standardised measurement we could use to do this. It'd be impossible. Happiness is subjective *and* relative. Getting a million bucks might make me happy, but Bill Gates bored. Having a child can be conflicting intensely. The death of a loved one could be both sad and a relief.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5647ff51faca34bb74459ad4f3d56779",
"text": "\"fennec has a very good answer but i feel it provides too much information. So i'll just try to explain what that sentence says. Put option is the right to sell a stock. \"\"16 puts on Cisco at 71 cents\"\", means John comes to Jim and says, i'll give you 71 cent now, if you allow me to sell one share of Cisco to you at $16 at some point in the future ( on expiration date). NYT quote says 1000 puts that means 1000 contracts - he bought a right to sell 100,000 shares of Cisco on some day at $16/share. Call option - same idea: right to buy a stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "356a2e623de8568a36800b87f23611e0",
"text": "\"There may well be several such graphs, I expect googling will turn them up; but the definition of risk is actually quite important here. My definition of risk might not be quite the same as yours, so the relative risk factors would be different. For example: in general, stocks are more risky than bonds. But owning common shares in a blue-chip company might well be less risky than owning bonds from a company teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and no single risk number can really capture that. Another example: while I can put all my money in short-term deposits, and it is pretty \"\"safe\"\", if it grows at 1% so that my investment portfolio cannot fund my retirement, then I have a risk that I will run out of money before I shuffle off this mortal coil. How to capture that \"\"risk\"\" in a single number? So you will need to better define your parameters before you can prepare a visual aid. Good Luck\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0633a8f9a7f64459ddcbb18125935018",
"text": "\"I think that \"\"memoryless\"\" in this context of a given stock's performance is not a term of art. IMO, it's an anecdotal concept or cliche used to make a point about holding a stock. Sometimes people get stuck... they buy a stock or fund at 50, it goes down to 30, then hold onto it so they can \"\"get back to even\"\". By holding the loser stock for emotional reasons, the person potentially misses out on gains elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d2b124795bc36a1421cb615e4b3ab19",
"text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2272958d9934c53d50c10223e989af33",
"text": "I always thought high-risk investing is hit or miss, but this is working out very well with the stocks I've chosen High risk investing IS hit and miss. We are in an historic bull market. Do not pat yourself on the back too hard, the bear can be around any corner and your high risk strategy will then be put to the test.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210",
"text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "778c0d92d2a35ab391cb4a0481d8f181",
"text": "no offense, but clicking through to that guys blog and fund page he seems like a charlatan and a snake oil salesman. It's not surprising that he doesn't like asset manager software because he himself is an asset manager. the software is trying to replace him. He doesn't make money by beating the market... he makes money by convincing others that he can... he is exactly the type of person that the original article is warning against investing with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "844e727cb6711f204c235c018b8b8ca0",
"text": "It's a phrase that has no meaning out of context. When I go to Las Vegas (I don't go, but if I did) I would treat what I took as money I plan to lose. When I trade stock options and buy puts or calls, I view it as a calculated risk, with a far greater than zero chance of having the trade show zero in time. A single company has a chance of going bankrupt. A mix of stocks has risk, the S&P was at less than half its high in the 2008 crash. The money I had in the S&P was not money I could afford to lose, but I could afford to wait it out. There's a difference. We're not back at the highs, but we're close. By the way, there are many people who would not sleep knowing that their statement shows a 50% loss from a prior high point. Those people should be in a mix more suited to their risk tolerance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02382e9730d0476bf5a1918851d312c7",
"text": "\"Classic investing guru Benjamin Graham defines \"\"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return.\"\" He contrasts this with speculation which is anything else (no thorough analysis, no safety of principal, or no adequate return). The word \"\"adequate\"\" is important, since it contrasts adequate returns with those that are either lower than needed or higher than necessary to reach your goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3749bd9223d2080c026d8c67c9ac9201",
"text": "\"Translation : Funds managers that use traditionnal methods to select stocks will have less success than those who use artificial intelligence and computer programs to select stocks. Meaning : The use of computer programs and artificial intelligence is THE way to go for hedge fund managers in the future because they give better results. \"\"No man is better than a machine, but no machine is better than a man with a machine.\"\" Alternative article : Hedge-fund firms, Wall Street Journal. A little humour : \"\"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.\"\" wrote Nicolas Boileau in 1674.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2900a922d243bb2b0282f4fcec6579b",
"text": "\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
76159f2245dab25f777c7a130cb64f19
|
Are there any risks from using mint.com?
|
[
{
"docid": "e8b097d3621577dcbfa59ce9b75525c7",
"text": "\"Mint.com uses something called OFX (Open Financial Exchange) to get the information in your bank account. If someone accessed your mint account they would not be able to perform any transactions with your bank. All they would be able to do is view the same information you do, which some of it could be personal <- that's up to you. Generally the weakest point in security is with the user. An \"\"attacker\"\" is far more likely to get your account information from you then he is from the site your registered with. Why you're the weakest point: When you enter your account information, your password is never saved exactly how you enter it. It's passed through what is called a \"\"one way function\"\", these functions are easy to compute one way but given the end-result is EXTREMELY difficult to compute in reverse. So in a database if someone looked up your password they would see it something like this \"\"31435008693ce6976f45dedc5532e2c1\"\". When you log in to an account your password is sent through this function and then the result is checked against what is saved in the database, if they match you are granted access. The way an attacker would go about getting your password is by entering values into the function and checking the values against yours, this is known as a brute force attack. For our example (31435008693ce6976f45dedc5532e2c1) it would take someone 5 million years to decry-pt using a basic brute force attack. I used \"\"thisismypassword\"\" as my example password, it's 12 characters long. This is why most sites urge you to create long passwords with a mix of numbers, uppercase, lowercase and symbols. This is a very basic explanation of security and both sides have better tools then the one explained but this gives you an idea of how security works for sites like these. You're far more likely to get a virus or a key logger steal your information. I do use Mint. Edit: From the Mint FAQ: Do you store my bank login information on your servers? Your bank login credentials are stored securely in a separate database using multi-layered hardware and software encryption. We only store the information needed to save you the trouble of updating, syncing or uploading financial information manually. Edit 2: From OFX About Security Open Financial Exchange (OFX) is a unified specification for the electronic exchange of financial data between financial institutions, businesses and consumers via the Internet. This is how mint is able to communicate with even your small local bank. FINAL EDIT: ( This answers everything ) For passwords to Mint itself, we compute a secure hash of the user's chosen password and store only the hash (the hash is also salted - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal... ). Hashing is a one-way function and cannot be reversed. It is not possible to ever see or recover the password itself. When the user tries to login, we compute the hash of the password they are attempting to use and compare it to the hashed value on record. (This is a standard technique which every site should use). For banking credentials, we generally must use reversible encryption for which we have special procedures and secure hardware kept in our secure and guarded datacenter. The decryption keys never leave the hardware device (which is built to destroy the key material if the tamper protection is attacked). This device will only decrypt after it is activated by a quorum of other keys, each of which is stored on a smartcard and also encrypted by a password known to only one person. Furthermore the device requires a time-limited cryptographically-signed permission token for each decryption. The system (which I designed and patented) also has facilities for secure remote auditing of each decryption. Source: David K Michaels, VP Engineering, Mint.com - http://www.quora.com/How-do-mint-com-and-similar-websites-avoid-storing-passwords-in-plain-text\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df27f28c8004c4cc694b2d81cf463b68",
"text": "\"Some banks allow mint.com read-only access via a separate \"\"access code\"\" that a customer can create. This would still allow an attacker to find out how much money you have and transaction details, and may have knowledge of some other information (your account number perhaps, your address, etc). The problem with even this read-only access is that many banks also allow users at other banks to set up a direct debit authorization which allows withdrawals. And to set the direct debit link up, the main hurdle is to be able to correctly identify the dates and amounts of two small test deposit transactions, which could be done with just read-only access. Most banks only support a single full access password per account, and there you have a bigger potential risk of actual fraudulent activity. But if you discover such activity and report it in a timely manner, you should be refunded. Make sure to check your account frequently. Also make sure to change your passwords once in a while.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e9e89ee49bbbee7ded9f41224cb3f05",
"text": "With Mint you are without a doubt telling a third party your username and password. If mint gets compromised, or hires a bad actor, technically there isn't anything to stop shenanigans. You simply must be vigilant and be aware of your rights and the legal protections you have against fraud. For all the technical expertise and careful security they put in place, we the customers have to know that there is not, nor will there ever be, a perfectly secure system. The trade off is what you can do for the increased risk. And when taken into the picture of all the Other* ways you banking information is exposed, and how little you can do about it, mint.com is only a minor increase in risk in my opinion. *See paypal, a check's routing numbers, any e-commerce site you shop at, every bank that has an online facing system, your HR dept's direct deposit and every time you swipe your debit / credit card somewhere. These are all technically risks, some of which are beyond your control to change. Short of keeping your money in your mattress you can't avoid risk. (And then your mattress catches fire.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0546c54dd914223b64e3377ed748a20b",
"text": "Here's a very simple answer, ask your broker/bank. Mine uses ofx. When asked if they would reimburse me for any unauthorized activity, the answer was no. Simple enough, the banks that use it don't feel its secure enough.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "535fe2de4b0d7b8130a5c2fd22865b52",
"text": "MoneyStrands is a site very similar to Mint, but does not force you to link bank accounts. You can create manual accounts and use all features of the site without linking to banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "90bdaf31188a53f217525740e8bc02f9",
"text": "Mint can probably do this. They probably have apps now and their online service has had charts for years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a471c4c58c07ed7ca866cff9414c8695",
"text": "There isn't one. I haven't been very happy with anything I've tried, commercial or open source. I've used Quicken for a while and been fairly happy with the user experience, but I hate the idea of their sunset policy (forced upgrades) and using proprietary format for the data files. Note that I wouldn't mind using proprietary and/or commercial software if it used a format that allowed me to easily migrate to another application. And no, QIF/OFX/CSV doesn't count. What I've found works well for me is to use Mint.com for pulling transactions from my accounts and categorizing them. I then export the transaction history as a CSV file and convert it to QIF/OFX using csv2ofx, and then import the resulting file into GNUCash. The hardest part is using categories (Mint.com) and accounts (GnuCash) properly. Not perfect by any means, but certainly better than manually exporting transactions from each account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3011908bdba52666689a673895b1028",
"text": "I can't speak to Tangerine's system specifically, but I have used similar systems through Bank of America and Chase (both US-based). It sounds like my experience in terms of identity verification were very similar, and I now use this to pay several contractors on a regular basis. No problems so far.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b274dcbeca8aaf4a0d475b7e2101809b",
"text": "Mint has worked fairly well for tracking budgets and expenses, but I use GnuCash to plug in the holes. It offers MSFT$ like registers; the ability to track cash expenses, assets, and liabilities; and the option to track individual investment transactions. I also use GnuCash reports for my taxes since it gives a clearer picture of my finances than Mint does.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "282f7837d0a479b69a571c897a726ac4",
"text": "\"I'm a big fan of Mint. I tried Wesabe prior to mint and at the time (about a year ago) it was lacking the integration of many of my accounts, so I had to go with Mint by necessity. Since then, Mint has gotten better almost monthly. I can do almost everything I want, and the budgeting tools (which would address your \"\"6 months out\"\" forecast desires) and deal alerts (basically tells you if you can get a better interest rate on savings/credit card/etc) are really helpful. Highly recommended!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4767150d12ae946f266ade3beae6a7b0",
"text": "You could keep an eye on BankSimple perhaps? I think it looks interesting at least... too bad I don't live in the US... They are planning to create an API where you can do everything you can do normally. So when that is released you could probably create your own command-line interface :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4798cc006c3126a0594e2e93fe22ef11",
"text": "Allowing others to share access to your Bank Account; i.e. giving then the login id and password has its risks;",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "21cfbbe80233f6b6b6c508f0850994ee",
"text": "\"Status alone shouldn't be a problem. A fellow blogger publishes a blogger list at Rock Star Finance where he lists nearly 1000 personal finance bloggers web sites. You can see that many of them publicly offer their numbers. What you need to consider is whether you are anonymous, or if friends and family will know it's you. \"\"Hey Tev, you have no debt and already saved XXX francs? Can you lend me ZZ francs to buy....?\"\" That is the greater risk. The potential larger risk for the higher worth people is that of targeted theft. (Interesting you couldn't find this via search, the PF blogging community is large, mature, and continuing to grow.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7c1db1307ddf6bb11778febb7ef6e67",
"text": "Mint.com is a web app with an iPhone (and Android) app. Also, You Need A Budget appears to support all three.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e9c19e8267e8915f6837da5ba3ef239",
"text": "A lot of these schemes fail to take into account the time/effort you have to spend in order to extract the small amount of profit you would get. If there were easy money to be made, people would start making it and the company that was allowing themselves to be swindled would put an end to that deal. So these things usually don't last. You used to be able to order dollar coins from the mint via credit card, with no shipping. This was risk free and allowed you to earn credit card points. But the mint has effectively plugged this hole.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b316b9df9a23a3168f27e058368574f",
"text": "Whether or not I trust them depends entirely on the personal finance application. In the cases of Mint and Quicken, I would trust both. Always make sure to do plenty of research before submitting any personal information to any source.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "194eadca81d09c4e06a17d67d22b4d59",
"text": "You are correct, I didn't understand that at all. Apparently us consumers don't need to know when our financial information is susceptible to being compromised. One question: Is your username based on the Redwall book series? I loved all those books.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
df957d14f03a4955236c51e8189dc277
|
What prices are compared to decide a security is over-valued, fairly valued or under-valued?
|
[
{
"docid": "242876aa631d68d5e2aa0e20a00e08bf",
"text": "\"I was wondering how \"\"future cash flows of the asset\"\" are predicted? Are they also predicted using fundamental and/or technical analysis? There are a many ways to forecast the future cash flows of assets. For example, for companies: It seems like calculating expected/required rate using CAPM does not belong to either fundamental or technical analysis, does it? I would qualify the CAPM as quantitative analysis because it's mathematics and statistics. It's not really fundamental since its does not relies on economical data (except the prices). And as for technical analysis, the term is often used as a synonym for graphical analysis or chartism, but quantitative analysis can also be referred as technical analysis. the present value of future cash flows [...] (called intrinsic price/value, if I am correct?) Yes you are correct. I wonder when deciding whether an asset is over/fair/under-valued, ususally what kind of price is compared to what other kind of price? If it's only to compare with the price, usually, the Net asset value (which is the book value), the Discount Cash flows (the intrinsic value) and the price of comparable companies and the CAPM are used in comparison to current market price of the asset that you are studying. Why is it in the quote to compare the first two kinds of prices, instead of comparing the current real price on the markets to any of the other three kinds? Actually the last line of the quote says that the comparison is done on the observed price which is the market price (the other prices can't really be observed). But, think that the part: an asset is correctly priced when its estimated price is the same as the present value of future cash flows of the asset means that, since the CAPM gives you an expected rate of return, by using this rate to compute the present value of future cash flows of the asset, you should have the same predicted price. I wrote this post explaining some valuation strategies. Maybe you can find some more information by reading it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6bf6a14a1513d13c389d1123443d40fb",
"text": "\"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \"\"conservative\"\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \"\"Life Strategy\"\" funds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fec42beb84e2821dd90cd035446ea8d",
"text": "Something like cost = a × avg_spreadb + c × volatilityd × (order_size/avg_volume)e. Different brokers have different formulas, and different trading patterns will have different coefficients.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a6e87ece5bda5dbb3720b8f90837b88",
"text": "\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \"\"price\"\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \"\"right\"\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "351caceff65bf83be90d557d5c8a94f5",
"text": "I stock is only worth what someone will pay for it. If you want to sell it you will get market price which is the bid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ede6a47dd7289c2b8990c723b09625da",
"text": "A stock is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it trades different values on different days, that means someone was willing to pay a higher price OR someone was willing to sell at a lower price. There is no rule to prevent a stock from trading at $10 and then $100 the very next trade... or $1 the very next trade. (Though exchanges or regulators may halt trading, cancel trades, or impose limits on large price movements as they deem necessary, but this is beside the point I'm trying to illustrate). Asking what happens from the close of one day to the open of the next is like asking what happens from one trade to the next trade... someone simply decided to sell or pay a different price. Nothing needs to have happened in between.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79d5438b0c557a93e7157a96506906bf",
"text": "I work on a buy-side firm, so I know how these small data issues can drive us crazy. Hope my answer below can help you: Reason for price difference: 1. Vendor and data source Basically, data providers such as Google and Yahoo redistribute EOD data by aggregating data from their vendors. Although the raw data is taken from the same exchanges, different vendors tend to collect them through different trading platforms. For example, Yahoo, is getting stock data from Hemscott (which was acquired by Morningstar), which is not the most accurate source of EOD stocks. Google gets data from Deutsche Börse. To make the process more complicated, each vendor can choose to get EOD data from another EOD data provider or the exchange itself, or they can produce their own open, high, low, close and volume from the actual trade tick-data, and these data may come from any exchanges. 2. Price Adjustment For equities data, the re-distributor usually adjusts the raw data by applying certain customized procedures. This includes adjustment for corporate actions, such as dividends and splits. For futures data, rolling is required, and back-ward and for-warding rolling can be chosen. Different adjustment methods can lead to different price display. 3. Extended trading hours Along with the growth of electronic trading, many market tends to trade during extended hours, such as pre-open and post-close trading periods. Futures and FX markets even trade around the clock. This leads to another freedom in price reporting: whether to include the price movement during the extended trading hours. Conclusion To cross-verify the true price, we should always check the price from the Exchange where the asset is actually traded. Given the convenience of getting EOD data nowadays, this task should be easy to achieve. In fact, for professional traders and investors alike, they will never reply price on free providers such as Yahoo and Google, they will most likely choose Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. However, for personal use, Yahoo and Google should both be good choices, and the difference is small enough to ignore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73143af4a4f1f0f7a3f85b82cb901a9f",
"text": "\"Their algorithm may be different (and proprietary), but how I would to it is to assume that daily changes in the stock are distributed normally (meaning the probability distribution is a \"\"bell curve\"\" - the green area in your chart). I would then calculate the average and standard deviation (volatility) of historical returns to determine the center and width of the bell curve (calibrating it to expected returns and implied volaility based on option prices), then use standard formulas for lognormal distributions to calculate the probability of the price exceeding the strike price. So there are many assumptions involved, and in the end it's just a probability, so there's no way to know if it's right or wrong - either the stock will cross the strike or it won't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e672e48be08da56391e77f6c10a69ca0",
"text": "\"Investopedia's explanation of overbought: An asset that has experienced sharp upward movements over a very short period of time is often deemed to be overbought. Determining the degree in which an asset is overbought is very subjective and can differ between investors. Technicians use indicators such as the relative strength index, the stochastic oscillator or the money flow index to identify securities that are becoming overbought. An overbought security is the opposite of one that is oversold. Something to consider is the \"\"potential buyers\"\" and \"\"potential sellers\"\" of a stock. In the case of overbought, there are many more buyers that have appeared and driven the price to a point that may be seen as \"\"unsustainably high\"\" and thus may well come down soon if one looks at the first explanation. For oversold, consider the flip side of this. A real life scenario here would be to consider airline tickets where a flight may be \"\"overbooked\"\" that could also be seen as \"\"oversold\"\" in that more tickets were sold than seats that are available and thus people will be bumped as not all tickets can be honored in this case. For a stock scenario of \"\"oversold\"\" consider how IPOs work where several buyers have to exist to buy the shares so the investment bank isn't stuck holding them which sends up the price since the amount wanted by the buyers may be more than what can be sold. The price shifts in bringing out more of one side than the other is the point you are missing. In shifting the price up, this attracts more sellers to satisfy the buyers. However, if there is a surge of buyers that flood the market, then there could be a perception that the security is overbought in the sense that there may be few buyers left for the security and thus the price may fall in the near term. If the price is coming down, this attracts more buyers to achieve the other side. The potential part is what you don't see and I wonder if you can imagine this part of the market. The airline example I give as an example as you don't seem to think either side of buying or selling can be overloaded. In the case of an oversold flight, there were more seats sold than available so yes it is possible. Stocks exist in finite quantities as there are only X shares of a company trading at any one time if you look into the concept of a float.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bce49c9f14e16724303feccaa0b44cf",
"text": "I disagree strongly with the other two answers posted thus far. HFT are not just liquidity providers (in fact that claim is completely bogus, considering liquidity evaporates whenever the market is falling). HFT are not just scalping for pennies, they are also trading based on trends and news releases. So you end up having imperfect algorithms, not humans, deciding the price of almost every security being traded. These algorithms data mine for news releases or they look for and make correlations, even when none exist. The result is that every asset traded using HFT is mispriced. This happens in a variety of ways. Algos will react to the same news event if it has multiple sources (Ive seen stocks soar when week old news was re-released), algos will react to fake news posted on Twitter, and algos will correlate S&P to other indexes such as VIX or currencies. About 2 years ago the S&P was strongly correlated with EURJPY. In other words, the American stock market was completely dependent on the exchange rate of two currencies on completely different continents. In other words, no one knows the true value of stocks anymore because the free market hasnt existed in over 5 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd25863c896820977eca451e4ac7e6ae",
"text": "It's done by Opening Auction (http://www.advfn.com/Help/the-opening-auction-68.html): The Opening Auction Between 07.50 and a random time between 08.00 and 08.00.30, there will be called an auction period during which time, limit and market orders are entered and deleted on the order book. No order execution takes place during this period so it is possible that the order book will become crossed. This means that some buy and sell orders may be at the same price and some buy orders may be at higher prices than some sell orders. At the end of the random start period, the order book is frozen temporarily and an order matching algorithm is run. This calculates the price at which the maximum volume of shares in each security can be traded. All orders that can be executed at this price will be filled automatically, subject to price and priorities. No additional orders can be added or deleted until the auction matching process has been completed. The opening price for each stock will be either a 'UT' price or, in the event that there are no transactions resulting form the auction, then the first 'AT' trade will be used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fac9c2afeec9e875553e5d562890d340",
"text": "You are right that every transaction involves a seller and a buyer. The difference is the level of willingness from both parties. Overbought and oversold, as I understand them (particularly in the context of stocks), describe prolonged price increase (overbought, people are more willing to buy than sell, driving price up) and price decrease (oversold, people are more willing to sell than buy, driving price down).",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "5aa3f904bf8a057a8e5e4f1f7d9de354",
"text": "There isn't a formula like that, there is only the greed of other market participants, and you can try to predict how greedy those participants will be. If someone decided to place a sell order of 100,000 shares at $5, then you can buy an additional 100,000 shares at $5. In reality, people can infer that they might be the only ones trying to sell 100,000 shares right then, and raise the price so that they make more money. They will raise their sell order to $5.01, $5.02 or as high as they want, until people stop trying to buy their shares. It is just a non-stop auction, just like on ebay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "865734973d4b7c2127e0322bdd58ae69",
"text": "Fair value can mean many different things depending on the context. And it has nothing to do with the price at which your market order would be executed. For example if you buy market, you could get executed below 101 if there are hidden orders, at 101 if that sell order is large enough and it is still there when your order reaches the market, or at a higher price otherwise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "643e78b1c9d9d924611f22ae25d4853d",
"text": "\"I would differentiate between pricing and valuation a bit more: Valuation is the result of investment analysis and the result of coming up with a fair value for a company and its shares; this is done usually by equity analysts. I have never heard about pricing a security in this context. Pricing would indicate that the price of a product or security is \"\"set\"\" by someone (i.e. a car manufacturer sets the prices of its new cars). The price of a security however is not set by an analyst or an institution, it is solely set by the stock market (perhaps based on the valuations of different analysts). There is only one exception to this: pricing an IPO before its shares are actually traded on an exchange. In this case the underwriting banks set the price (based on the valuation) at which the shares are distributed.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7e344704d01b6bb6a6f91164b79404a1
|
Am I exposed to currency risk when I invest in shares of a foreign company that are listed domestically?
|
[
{
"docid": "b7b84c856eb772803ebfa337eef126f3",
"text": "\"Yes, you're still exposed to currency risk when you purchase the stock on company B's exchange. I'm assuming you're buying the shares on B's stock exchange through an ADR, GDR, or similar instrument. The risk occurs as a result of the process through which the ADR is created. In its simplest form, the process works like this: I'll illustrate this with an example. I've separated the conversion rate into the exchange rate and a generic \"\"ADR conversion rate\"\" which includes all other factors the bank takes into account when deciding how many ADR shares to sell. The fact that the units line up is a nice check to make sure the calculation is logically correct. My example starts with these assumptions: I made up the generic ADR conversion rate; it will remain constant throughout this example. This is the simplified version of the calculation of the ADR share price from the European share price: Let's assume that the euro appreciates against the US dollar, and is now worth 1.4 USD (this is a major appreciation, but it makes a good example): The currency appreciation alone raised the share price of the ADR, even though the price of the share on the European exchange was unchanged. Now let's look at what happens if the euro appreciates further to 1.5 USD/EUR, but the company's share price on the European exchange falls: Even though the euro appreciated, the decline in the share price on the European exchange offset the currency risk in this case, leaving the ADR's share price on the US exchange unchanged. Finally, what happens if the euro experiences a major depreciation and the company's share price decreases significantly in the European market? This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis. Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss. Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e5edb2b7684003ea4f01ab69a4c02e39",
"text": "why should I have any bias in favour of my local economy? The main reason is because your expenses are in the local currency. If you are planning on spending most of your money on foreign travel, that's one thing. But for most of us, the bulk of our expenses are incurred locally. So it makes sense for us to invest in things where the investment return is local. You might argue that you can always exchange foreign results into local currency, and that's true. But then you have two risks. One risk you'll have anywhere: your investments may go down. The other risk with a foreign investment is that the currency may lose value relative to your currency. If that happens, even a good performing investment can go down in terms of what it can return to you. That fund denominated in your currency is really doing these conversions behind the scenes. Unless the bulk of your purchases are from imports and have prices that fluctuate with your currency, you will probably be better off in local investments. As a rough rule of thumb, your country's import percentage is a good estimate of how much you should invest globally. That looks to be about 20% for Australia. So consider something like 50% local stocks, 20% local bonds, 15% foreign stocks, 5% foreign bonds, and 10% local cash. That will insulate you a bit from a weak local currency while not leaving you out to dry with a strong local currency. It's possible that your particular expenses might be more (or less) vulnerable to foreign price fluctuations than the typical. But hopefully this gives you a starting point until you can come up with a way of estimating your personal vulnerability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f798d0f57514d3901fc2381a23d9913",
"text": "If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ee5094a258ae0377d39f8cdcfb21087",
"text": "\"Tricky question, basically, you just want to first spread risk around, and then seek abnormal returns after you understand what portions of your portfolio are influenced by (and understand your own investment goals) For a relevant timely example: the German stock exchange and it's equity prices are reaching all time highs, while the Greek asset prices are reaching all time lows. If you just invested in \"\"Europe\"\" your portfolio will experience only the mean, while suffering from exchange rate changes. You will likely lose because you arbitrarily invested internationally, for the sake of being international, instead of targeting a key country or sector. Just boils down to more research for you, if you want to be a passive investor you will get passive investor returns. I'm not personally familiar with funds that are good at taking care of this part for you, in the international markets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3e7ece285f3bda48d59461cff75e626",
"text": "it looks like using an ADR is the way to go here. michelin has an ADR listed OTC as MGDDY. since it is an ADR it is technically a US company that just happens to be a shell company holding only shares of michelin. as such, there should not be any odd tax or currency implications. while it is an OTC stock, it should settle in the US just like any other US OTC. obviously, you are exposing yourself to exchange rate fluctuations, but since michelin derives much of it's income from the US, it should perform similarly to other multinational companies. notes on brokers: most US brokers should be able to sell you OTC stocks using their regular rates (e.g. etrade, tradeking). however, it looks like robinhood.com does not offer this option (yet). in particular, i confirmed directly from tradeking that the 75$ foreign settlement fee does not apply to MGDDY because it is an ADR, and not a (non-ADR) foreign security.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28409171ea6205d636f9f30e07fba1f0",
"text": "\"Yes and no. There are two primary ways to do this. The first is known as \"\"cross listing\"\". Basically, this means that shares are listed in the home country are the primary shares, but are also traded on secondary markets using mechanisms like ADRs or Globally Registered Shares. Examples of this method include Vodafone and Research in Motion. The second is \"\"dual listing\"\". This is when two corporations that function as a single business are listed in multiple places. Examples of this include Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. Usually companies choose this method for tax purposes when they merge or acquire an international company. Generally speaking, you can safely buy shares in whichever market makes sense to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "503261d5bff005c524a8682b785a5b54",
"text": "International equity are considered shares of companies, which are headquartered outside the United States, for instance Research in Motion (Canada), BMW (Germany), UBS (Switzerland). Some investors argue that adding international equities to a portfolio can reduce its risk due to regional diversification.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ebc7fc2fe6982e3c3c583336b0bc7fb",
"text": "There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "941bc8c4d7501db47ebd7aab8979253a",
"text": "Foreign stocks have two extra sources of risk attached to them; exchange rate and political. Exchange rate risk is obvious; if I buy a stock in a foreign currency and there is a currency movement that makes that investment worth less I lose money no matter what the stock does. This can be offset using exchange rate swaps. (This is ceteris paribus, of course; changes in exchange rate can give a comparative advantage to international and exporting companies that will improve the fundamentals and so increase the price of the stock relative to a local firm. The economics of the firms in particular are not explored in this answer as it would get too complicated and long if I did.) Political risk relates not only to the problems surrounding international politics such as a country deciding that foreign nationals may no longer own shares in their national industries or deciding to seize foreign nationals' assets as happens in some areas. Your home country may also decide to apply sanctions to the country in which you are invested thus making it impossible to get your money back even though the foreign country will allow you to redeem them or sell. Diplomatic relations and trade agreements tend to be difficult. There are further problems in lack of understanding of foreign countries' laws, tax code, customs etc. relating to investments and the necessity to find legal representation in a country you may never have visited if there are issues. There is also a hidden risk in that, as an individual investor, you are not likely to be reading the local financial news for that country regularly enough to spot company specific issues arising. By the time these issues get into international media its far too late as all of the local investors have sold out of their positions already. The risks are probably no different if you have the time to monitor international relations and the foreign country's news, and have FX swaps in place to counteract FX risk as the funds and investment banks do but as an individual investor the time required is not feasible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4339890815d1bd9b8804bd8772f1081f",
"text": "Although not technically an answer to your question, I want to address why this is generally a bad idea. People normally put money into a savings account so that they can have quick access to it if needed, and because it is safe. You lose both of these advantages with a foreign account. You are looking at extra time and fees to receive access to the money in those australian accounts. And, more importantly, you are taking on substantial FX risk. Since 2000 the AUD exchange rate has gone from a low of 0.4845 to a high of 1.0972. Those swings are almost as large as the swings of the S&P. But, you're only getting an average return of 3.5%, instead of the average return people expect with stocks of 10%. A better idea would be to talk to a financial adviser who can help you find an investment that meets your risk tolerance, but gives you a better return than your savings account. On a final thought, the exception to this would be if you plan on spending significant time in Australia. Having money in a savings account there would actually allow you to mitigate some of your FX risk by allowing you to decide whether to convert USD when you are travelling, or using the money that you already have in your foreign account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db571656437f699d18b3d7941b386abd",
"text": "Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0614273d91d85965c4ba9eaaef0c1251",
"text": "Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8a85fd74968db82a68d08b94722c7d6",
"text": "There are short-term and long term aspects. In the long term, if you live and work in Australia and plan to continue doing both indefinitely, you might as well move all your cash investments there. There would be no point bearing the exchange rate risks. It may be worth keeping the account open with just enough credit to stop it being shut down. There is no point needing to (think about) filing foreign tax returns just because you have an account earning a small amount of interest. In the short term, I think the more important question is practicality rather than exchange rate risk. You want to have enough cash in both countries that if you suddenly have to pay say an apartment deposit or a bill, you won't be caught short. So I would leave at least a few thousands dollars in a US bank account until at least a couple of months after the move, when I was sure everything was settled. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7c498aeb47a6ff89bd62f0388e5f896",
"text": "Academic research into ADRs seems to suggest that pairs-trading ADRs and their underlying shares reveals that there certainly are arbitrage opportunities, but that in most (but not all cases) such opportunities are quickly taken care of by the market. (See this article for the mexican case, the introduction has a list of other articles you could read on the subject). In some cases parity doesn't seem to be reached, which may have to do with transaction costs, the risk of transacting in a foreign market, as well as administrative & legal concerns that can affect the direct holder of a foreign share but don't impact the ADR holder (since those risks and costs are borne by the institution, which presumably has a better idea of how to manage such risks and costs). It's also worth pointing out that there are almost always arbitrage opportunities that get snapped up quickly: the law of one price doesn't apply for very short time-frames, just that if you're not an expert in that particular domain of the market, it might as well be a law since you won't see the arbitrage opportunities fast enough. That is to say, there are always opportunities for arbitrage with ADRs but chances are YOU won't be able to take advantage of it (In the Mexican case, the price divergence seems to have an average half-life of ~3 days). Some price divergence might be expected: ADR holders shouldn't be expected to know as much about the foreign market as the typical foreign share holder, and that uncertainty may also cause some divergence. There does seem to be some opportunity for arbitrage doing what you suggest in markets where it is not legally possible to short shares, but that likely is the value added from being able to short a share that belongs to a market where you can't do that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89e762cfa1ea779ab51e8ebebce04405",
"text": "There contracts called an FX Forwards where you can get a feel for what the market thinks an exchange rate will be in the future. Now exchange rates are notoriously uncertain, but it is worth noting that at current prices market believes your Krona will be worth only 0.0003 Euro less three years from now than it is worth now. So, if you are considering taking money out of your investments and converting it to Euro and missing out on three years of dividends and hopefully capital gains its certainly possible this may work out for you but this is unlikely. If you are at all uncertain that you will actually move this is an even worse idea as paying to convert money twice would be an additional expense on top of the missed returns. There are FX financial products (futures and forwards) where you can get exposure to FX without having to put the full amount down. This could help hedge your house value but this can be extremely expensive over time for individual investors and would almost certainly not work in your favor. Something that could help reduce your risk a bit would be to invest more heavily in European even Irish (and British?) stocks which will move along with the currency and economy. You can lose some diversification doing this, but it can help a little.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47ae96508ca08a01b1c2432172264fb7",
"text": "I just decided to start using GnuCash today, and I was also stuck in this position for around an hour before I figured out what to do exactly. The answer by @jldugger pointed me partially on the right track, so this answer is intended to help people waste less time in the future. (Note: All numbers have been redacted for privacy issues, but I hope the images are sufficient to allow you to understand what is going on. ) Upon successfully importing your transactions, you should be able to see your transactions in the Checking Account and Savings Account (plus additional accounts you have imported). The Imbalance account (GBP in my case) will be negative of whatever you have imported. This is due to the double-entry accounting system that GnuCash uses. Now, you will have to open your Savings Account. Note that except for a few transactions, most of them are going to Imbalance. These are marked out with the red rectangles. What you have to do, now, is to click on them individually and sort them into the correct account. Unfortunately (I do not understand why they did this), you cannot move multiple transactions at once. See also this thread. Fortunately, you only have to do this once. This is what your account should look like after it is complete. After this is done, you should not have to move any more accounts, since you can directly enter the transactions in the Transfer box. At this point, your Accounts tab should look like this: Question solved!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
95a1f22b671179de0ba64466d9583f42
|
Weekly budgets based on (a variable) monthly budget
|
[
{
"docid": "948a4f5649ea7e6eff5c881e7c1a1db5",
"text": "\"I think the real problem here is dealing with the variable income. The envelope solution suggests the problem is that your brother doesn't have the discipline to avoid spending all his money immediately, but maybe that's not it. Maybe he could regulate his expenses just fine, but with such a variable income, he can't settle into a \"\"normal\"\" spending pattern. Without any savings, any budget would have to be based on the worst possible income for a month. This isn't a great: it means a poor quality of life. And what do you do with the extra money in the better-than-worst months? While it's easy to say \"\"plan for the worst, then when it's better, save that money\"\", that's just not going to happen. No one will want to live at their worst-case standard of living all the time. Someone would have to be a real miser to have the discipline to not use that extra money for something. You can say to save it for emergencies or unexpected events, but there's always a way to rationalize spending it. \"\"I'm a musician, so this new guitar is a necessary business expense!\"\" Or maybe the car is broken. Surely this is a necessary expense! But, do you buy a $1000 car or a $20000 car? There's always a way to rationalize what's necessary, but it doesn't change financial reality. With a highly variable income, he will need some cash saved up to fill in the bad months, which is replenished in the good months. For success, you need a reasonable plan for making that happen: one that includes provisions for spending it other than \"\"please try not to spend it\"\". I would suggest tracking income accurately for several months. Then you will have a real number (not a guess) of what an average month is. Then, you can budget on that. You will also have real numbers that allow you to calculate how long the bad stretches are, and thus determine how much cash reserve is necessary to make the odds of going broke in a bad period unlikely. Having that, you can make a budget based on average income, which should have some allowance for enjoying life. Of course initially the cash reserve doesn't exist, but knowing exactly what will happen when it does provides a good motivation for building the reserve rather than spending it today. Knowing that the budget includes rules for spending the reserves reduces the incentive to cheat. Of course, the eventual budget should also include provisions for long term savings for retirement, medical expenses, car maintenance, etc. You can do the envelope thing if that's helpful. The point here is to solve the problem of the variable income, so you can have an average income that doesn't result in a budget that delivers a soul crushing decrease in quality of living.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d4ac022357a4aca725b570514b3b575",
"text": "If you know, approximately, the minimum he would get in a month, his budget should be planned based on this amount. In months where he gets more than this, the excess should be put aside. In really bad months where the income drops below the expected minimum, he can use the money put aside. After a year of putting money aside, he can plan to use and budget this for any other expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01c12f52eabb65786993b2aee93e5567",
"text": "Try reading about budgeting. Make a list of all income coming in and all expenses going out. Eliminate any unnecessary expenses and try to increase income, which could include a part-time second job. Try to always put a portion of the income away as savings - try 10%, but if this is too hard to start with try saving at least 5% of the income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f3bf3bf914ef07a3f31eaca4d1b712b",
"text": "Developing self-discipline in his spending habits is a prerequisite for dealing with a (sometimes low) variable income. While it might feel like a roller coaster ride going from boom to bust, develop steady frugal spending habits will ease a lot of that pressure.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "15106763fc0ec93b54fc5b81995eccb4",
"text": "Honestly? Literally anything else. The same way budgets have been done since the dawn of time. If you have a mandatory expense (livable wage because we're prioritizing human life over discretionary spending because ethics) you trim the fat from other areas to make it work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a43e5d9780dcffd4e67f0f7a5daccd3c",
"text": "Plan all your needs and put priority based on need & urgency. New Habit: Rethink. Rethink. Rethink. whenever your going to buy something. rethink before going to buy. remember what is your priority one than that and will this affect on your plans. if that affect, than dont buy. Lets leave it to that habit, that will take care of your budget yar.............",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "704b2bcb28d2999847a056b205a74490",
"text": "Do you plan a monthly budget at the beginning of each month? This might seem counter-intuitive, but hear me out. Doing a budget is, of course, critically important for those who struggle with having enough money to last the month. Having this written spending plan allows people struggling with finances to control their spending and funnel money into debt reduction or saving goals. However, budgeting can also help those with the opposite problem. There are some, like you perhaps, that have enough income and live frugally enough that they don't have to budget. Their money comes in, and they spend so little that the bank account grows automatically. It sounds like a good problem to have, but your finances are still out of control, just in a different way. Perhaps you are underspending simply because you don't know if you will have enough money to last or not. By making a spending plan, you set aside money each month for various categories in three broad areas: Since you have plenty of money coming in, generously fund these spending categories. As long as you have money in the categories when you go to the store, you can feel comfortable splurging a little, because you know that your other categories are funded and the money is there to pay those other bills. Create other categories, such as technology or home improvement, and when you need an app or have a home improvement project, you can confidently spend this money, as it has already been allocated for those purposes. If you are new to budgeting, software such as YNAB can make it much easier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd0d9b20ae218aed0f289bcf2344589",
"text": "My wife and I meet in the first few days of each month to create a budget for the coming month. During that meeting we reconcile any spending for the previous month and make sure the amount money in our accounts matches the amount of money in our budget record to the penny. (We use an excel spreadsheet, how you track it matters less than the need to track it and see how much you spent in each category during the previous month.) After we have have reviewed the previous month's spending, we allocate money we made during that previous month to each of the categories. What categories you track and how granular you are is less important than regularly seeing how much you spend so that you can evaluate whether your spending is really matching your priorities. We keep a running total for each category so if we go over on groceries one month, then the following month we have to add more to bring the category back to black as well as enough for our anticipated needs in the coming month. If there is one category that we are consistently underestimating (or overestimating) we talk about why. If there are large purchases that we are planning in the coming month, or even in a few months, we talk about them, why we want them, and we talk about how much we're planning to spend. If we want a new TV or to go on a trip, we may start adding money to the category with no plans to spend in the coming month. The biggest benefit to this process has been that we don't make a lot of impulse purchases, or if we do, they are for small dollar amounts. The simple need to explain what I want and why means I have to put the thought into it myself, and I talk myself out of a lot of purchases during that train of thought. The time spent regularly evaluating what we get for our money has cut waste that wasn't really bringing much happiness. We still buy what we want, but we agree that we want it first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4015a67ac8479112a93c6116fbb474bf",
"text": "However, we would also like to include on our budget the actual cost of the furniture when we buy it. That would be double-counting. When it's time to buy the new kit, just pay for it directly from savings and then deduct that amount from the Furniture Cash asset that you'd been adding to every month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3666af20f9bb3570574b277a7faccb3",
"text": "Unless you are getting the loan from a loan shark, it is the most common case that each payment is applied to the interest accrued to date and the rest is applied towards reducing the principal. So, assuming that fortnightly means 26 equally-spaced payments during the year, the interest accrued at the end of the first fortnight is $660,000 x (0.0575/26) = $1459.62 and so the principal is reduced by $2299.61 - $1459.62 = $839.99 For the next payment, the principal still owing at the beginning of that fortnight will be $660,000-$839.99 = $659,160.01 and the interest accrued will be $659,160.01 x (0.0575/26) = $1457.76 and so slightly more of the principal will be reduced than the $839.99 of the previous payment. Lather, rinse, repeat until the loan is paid off which should occur at the end of 17.5 years (or after 455 biweekly payments). If the loan rate changes during this time (since you say that this is a variable-rate loan), the numbers quoted above will change too. And no, it is not the case that just %5.75 of the $2300 is interest, and the rest comes off the principle (sic)? Interest is computed on the principal amount still owed ($660,000 for starters and then decreasing fortnightly). not the loan payment amount. Edit After playing around with a spreadsheet a bit, I found that if payments are made every two weeks (14 days apart) rather than 26 equally spaced payments in one year as I used above, interest accrues at the rate of 5.75 x (14/365)% for the 14 days rather than at the rate of (5.75/26)% for the time between payments as I used above each 14 days, $2299.56 is paid as the biweekly mortgage payment instead of the $2299.61 stated by the OP, then 455 payments (slightly less than 17.5 calendar years when leap years are taken into account) will pay off the loan. In fact, that 455-th payment should be reduced by 65 cents. In view of rounding of fractional cents and the like, I doubt that it would be possible to have the last equal payment reduce the balance to exactly 0.",
"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": "9fc78a4a2264f71ee209de0eda2b0566",
"text": "The easiest way to get started on a budget is just to track where you spend your money. If you have set bills each month I would make a category for each of those to make sure you have enough to pay. You can try and split up the remaining income into categories but the easiest way to start is just to track your spending for a month or two. This gives you a birds eye view of what is actually realistic. Start with that total as your preliminary budget and then adjust as you go along to meet other financial goals. We use neobudget.com for tracking our income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "314f94e4cf9b9440544bac407e08f26d",
"text": "Gail Vaz-Oxlade has a budget calculator here that shows how much of your monthly net income should be allocated where. She recommends 35% for housing, 15% for transportation, 25% for life, 15% for debt repayment, and 10% for savings. Some people spend more then they make and her budget sheet helps get things under control for those people. For someone like yourself who seems to have things under control, this budget sheet can be a guideline for you. Play with the percentages if you like, and keep your spending under 100%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3990625113d4d472df79a83f6d924025",
"text": "I agree with the first poster- the first step is to measure your spending and put it down into raw numbers. Once you have the raw numbers, you will feel a natural inclination to improve on those numbers. Set yourself a daily target for cash / incidental expenses. It doesnt have to be a crazy target - just something you can achieve easily. Mark a 'tick' mark next to every day on the calendar that you meet that target (or spend less than the target). Gradually the momentum from the past few 'ticks' will automatically compel you to want to tick off the next day. At the end of each week, lower the target a little. You'll find that when you start measuring your expenditure, you become more aware of how you might be wasting money. All too often we just go out and buy stuff we don't need without really thinking about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f25194adc202671a1e3417243c0e5329",
"text": "Canada does not have a set date on which a (Federal) budget plan is unveiled. In 2011 it was June 6th. In 2012 it was March 29th and in 2013 it was 21st March.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26ba80da4e6af8359740b2bc2fa78c78",
"text": "Calculate a weekly budget for yourself for all incidentals (i.e. shopping, movies, eating out, etc...) and take that amount out in cash each week. For example, if your budget is $75 then try to spend only that $75 on all the extra stuff you do doing the week. It'll make you hyper-conscious of where your money is going and how fast. You'll be surprised at how quickly little things like grabbing coffee in the morning can chip away at your funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3174bd88a6eb03c2c32fcf1803446a5f",
"text": "My guess: they are giving you a constant number of days between when the bill is sent and when it is due. Due dates are usually set either: same date each month IE the 3rd of each month. same day IE first thursday of the month. Note: due date might vary based on weekends. Number of days in the month - date on bill should be pretty constant if due date option #1 is being used. Note how Feb dates were usually earlier, since it is a shorter month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0efe2844118714ca1c92e0350393e1cb",
"text": "You can take a shortcut and make a few cumulative transactions, maybe just estimate how much of your spending landed in each of your budget categories, but you will lose a lot of the value that you were building for yourself by tracking your spending during the earlier months. I reconcile my budget and categorize my spending on a monthly basis. It's always a chore to pull out the big stack of receipts and plow through them, but I've learned the value of having an accurate picture of where all my money went. There is no clean way to fake it. You can either take the time and reconcile your spending, or you can take a short cut. It probably renders your efforts to track everything from the beginning of the year invalid though. If you want to start over this month (as you did at the beginning of the year) that would probably be a cleaner way to reconcile things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a68359a66c665d1daba3d8492e89c600",
"text": "Alternative solution with possibly better results: Use a 3rd party to transfer money between both of you. 2 Services you may want to look at: Rent share might be the best option. We are using it to split payment between 3 people in our unit. The owner is getting a single check that appears to be coming from all of us. The payment is automatic and goes through every month. I'm not sure if you as the owner could collect money electronically as opposed to receiving a check. It sounded like you didn't necessarily care about that though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cd2e0d0c001f21464ba9660e81a2a677
|
1.4 million cash. What do I do?
|
[
{
"docid": "ee7e0b768dc50030f75a45f00575c0a3",
"text": "For now, park it in a mix of cash and short term bond funds like the Vanguard Short Term Investment Grade fund. The short term fund will help with the inflation issue. Make sure the cash positions are FDIC insured. Then either educate yourself about investing or start interviewing potential advisors. Look for referrals, and stay away from people peddling annuities or people who will not fully disclose how they get paid. Your goal should be to have a long-term plan within 6-12 months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa9b83d82c951d0886a1830938e9b1d7",
"text": "You can get an investment manager through firms like Fidelity or E*Trade to manage your account. It won't be someone dedicated exclusively to you, but you're in the range where they'd take you as a managed account customer. Another option would be to get a financial planner (CFP or something) help you to identify your needs and figure out what your investments portfolio should look like. This is not a whole lot of money, but is definitely enough to have an early retirement if managed and invested properly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "343d01b5f2726763ff0f0cd166d76d57",
"text": "\"I'm still recommending that you go to a professional. However, I'm going to talk about what you should probably expect the professional to be telling you. These are generalities. It sounds like you're going to keep working for a while. (If nothing else, it'll stave off boredom.) If that's the case, and you don't touch that $1.4 million otherwise, you're pretty much set for retirement and never need to save another penny, and you can afford to treat your girl to a nice dinner on the rest of your income. If you're going to buy expensive things, though - like California real estate and boats and fancy cars and college educations and small businesses - you can dip into that money but things will get trickier. If not, then it's a question of \"\"how do I structure my savings?\"\". A typical structure: Anywho. If you can research general principles in advance, you'll be better prepared.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "972fa7231ce44ecafa6849051bacb000",
"text": "First--congratulations! I certainly wish I could create something worth buying for $1.4 million. In addition to what @duffbeer703 recommended, consider putting some of the money in Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS). I second the advice on staying away from annuities as well. @littleadv is right about certified financial planners. A good one will put those funds in a mix of investments that minimize your potential tax exposure. They will also look at whether you're properly insured. Research what is FDIC-insured (and what isn't) here. Since you're still making a six-figure income in your salaried job, be sure not to neglect things like contributing to your 401(k)--especially if it's a matching one. At your salary level, I think you're still eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA (taxable income goes in, so withdrawals are tax-free). A good adviser will know which options are best.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3d5755430f9167132a38163dead6e60",
"text": "At 1.4 Million, you can definately afford a professional advisor who would give you the best advice taking into account all your goals and risk appetite.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3651bb2af6000cf54640c7bce08638f",
"text": "Have you considered investing in real estate? Property is cheap now and you have enough money for several properties. The income from tenants could be very helpful. If you find it's not for you, you can also sell your property and recover your initial investment, assuming house prices go up in the next few years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bde532eae5c6c8cbb1770a4bfd7c4d55",
"text": "\"For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: \"\"I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!\"\" -- $2M, these days, is \"\"comfortably well off.\"\")\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5372bf7b8d860f69f34fb9f8ec3e070",
"text": "you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4450694f0f396cc189e3c9ca36ec6823",
"text": "The capital gains is counted towards your income. If you cash out 1 Million dollars, you have a 1 Million dollar income for that year, which puts you at the 39.6% tax bracket. However, because that 1 Million dollars is all long term capital gains, you will only have to pay 20% of it in long term capital gains taxes. The best you can do is to cash the 1 Million dollars through several years instead of just all at once. This will put in a lower tax bracket and thus will pay lower capital gains tax.",
"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": "1279c055dc6a2e7145425d6b25103af9",
"text": "There are two or three issues here. One is, how quickly can you get cash out of your investments? If you had an unexpected expense, if you suddenly needed more cash than you have on hand, how long would it take to get money out of your Scott Trade account or wherever it is? I have a TD Ameritrade account which is pretty similar, and it just takes a couple of days to get money out. I'm hard pressed to think of a time when I literally needed a bunch of cash TODAY with no advance warning. What sudden bills is one likely to have? A medical bill, perhaps. But hey, just a few weeks ago I had to go to the emergency room with a medical problem, and it's not like they demanded cash on the table before they'd help me. I just got the bill, maybe 3 weeks after the event. I've never decided to move and then actually moved 2 days later. These things take SOME planning. Etc. Second, how much risk are you willing to tolerate? If you have your money in the stock market, the market could go down just as you need the cash. That's not even a worst case scenario, extreme scenario. After all, if the economy gets bad, the stock market could go down, and the same fact could result in your employer laying you off. That said, you could reduce this risk by keeping some of your money in a low-risk investment, like some high-quality bonds. Third, you want to have cash to cover the more modest, routine expenses. Like make sure you always have enough cash on hand to pay the rent or mortgage, buy food, and so on. And fourth, you want to keep a cushion against bookkeeping mistakes. I've had twice in my life that I've overdrawn a checking account, not because I was broke, but because I messed up my records and thought I had more money in the account than I really did. It's impossible to give exact numbers without knowing a lot about your income and expenses. But for myself: I keep a cushion of $1,000 to $1,5000 in my checking account, on top of all regular bills that I know I'll have to pay in the next month, to cover modest unexpected expenses and mistakes. I pay most of my bills by credit card for convenience --and pay the balance in full when I get the bill so I don't pay interest -- so I don't need a lot of cushion. I used to keep 2 to 3 months pay in an account invested in bonds and very safe stocks, something that wouldn't lose much value even in bad times. Since my daughter started college I've run this down to less than 1 months pay, and instead of replacing that money I'm instead putting my spare money into more general stocks, which is admittedly riskier. So between the two accounts I have a little over 2 months pay, which I think is low, but as I say, I'm trying to get my kids through college so I've run down my savings some. I think if I had more than 6 months pay in easily-liquidated assets, then unless I expected to need a bunch of cash for something, buying a new house or some such, I'd be transferring that to a retirement account with tax advantages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9e33a468c248932449a65b23d02f4b5",
"text": "I suppose it depends on how liquid you need, and if you're willing to put forth any risk whatsoever. The stock market can be dangerous, but there are strategies out there that will allow you to insure yourself against significant loss, while likely earning you a decent return. You can buy and sell options along with stocks so that if the stock drops, your loss is limited, and if it goes up or even stays where it's at, you make money (a lot more than 1% annually). Of course there's risk of loss, but if you plan ahead, you can cap that risk wherever you want, maybe 5%, maybe 10%, whatever suits your needs. And as far as liquidity goes, it should be no more than a week or so to close your positions and get your money if you really need it. But even so, I would only recommend this after putting aside at least a few thousand in a cash account for emergencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "562199728b298b68e02ab2224814095c",
"text": "\"Your only real alternative is something like T-Bills via your broker or TreasuryDirect or short-term bond funds like the Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Fund. The problem with this strategy is that these options are different animals than a money market. You're either going to subject yourself to principal risk or lose the flexibility of withdrawing the money. A better strategy IMO is to look at your overall portfolio and what you actually want. If you have $100k in a money market, and you are not going to need $100k in cash for the forseeable future -- you are \"\"paying\"\" (via the low yield) for flexibility that you don't need. If get your money into an appropriately diversified portfolio, you'll end up with a more optimal return. If the money involved is relatively small, doing nothing is a real option as well. $5,000 at 0.5% yields $25, and a 5% return yields only $250. If you need that money soon to pay tuition, use for living expenses, etc, it's not worth the trouble.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b381fce7dd29bb532e1caeb0c23caf36",
"text": "\"Let me summarize your question for you: \"\"I do not have the down payment that the lender requires for a mortgage. How can I still acquire the mortgage?\"\" Short answer: Find another lender or find more cash. Don't overly complicate the scenario. The correct answer is that the lender is free to do what they want. They deem it too risky to lend you $1.1M against this $1.8M property, unless they have $700k up front. You want their money, so you must accept their terms. If other lenders have the same outlook, consider that you cannot afford this house. Find a cheaper house.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8466c5005eb2bad187a712362c942f99",
"text": "\"Don't ignore it. If this is a non-trivial amount of money you need a lawyer. You've acknowledged that a loan exists and have personally guaranteed it, so a court can and will ultimately order you to pay. In doing so, they can put liens on your assests. Depending on the state, how the property is titled and other factors, that can include your home. If you don't have the money and are pretty much broke, try to negotiate a settlement. If they balk, you'll eventually need to start talking about bankruptcy -- that's the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and a motivator to settle. Otherwise, you need to either seriously explore bankruptcy or be prepared to lose your stuff to a judgement and having your dirty laundry aired in court. If you're not broke, but don't have liquid capital, you need to figure out a way to raise the money somehow. Again, you need to consult an attorney.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f28372124749da6c9627223ed8e9e488",
"text": "You need to find a fiduciary advisor pronto. Yes, you are getting a large amount of money, but you'll probably have to deal with higher than average health expenses and lower earning potential for years to come. You need to make sure the $1.2 million lasts you, and for that you need professional advice, not something you read on the Internet. Finding a knowledgeable advisor who has your interests at heart at a reasonable rate is the key here. These articles are a good start on what to look for: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financialcareers/08/fiduciary-planner.asp https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/09/20/6-pointed-questions-to-ask-before-hiring-a-financial-advisor/#2e2b91c489fe http://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionaleducation/11/suitability-fiduciary-standards.asp You should also consider what your earning potential is. You rule out college but at 26, you can have a long productive career and earn way more money than the $1.2 million you are going to get.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23d0426069b775a93976abd84038d7ea",
"text": "Do you need to do anything special when you receive such a huge amount of money? YES, ABSOLUTELY! 1st: Hire a lawyer. Retain him. Preferably one who has experience with high net worth clients. 2nd: Hire a financial advisor/wealth manager. Similarly, one who has experience with high net worth clients. 3rd: Tell no one else that you won. I cannot stress this point enough. Do these things before you even claim your prize. Winning the lottery seems like a great thing to people who haven't won, but statistically speaking most people end up worse off. Most people, not just lottery winners, but people who come into large sums of money unexpectedly just don't know how to handle it. Hire people who do know how to handle that sort of thing and get them on your side. If you win the lottery PROTECT YOURSELF! Go here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the_happiest_5word_sentence_you_could_hear/chb38xf and read the top comment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7172f0dbc7272ccb64f5add44bd49f70",
"text": "Borrow the overpriced bond promising to repay the lender $1000 in one year. Sell the bond immediately for $960. Put $952.38 in the bank where the it will gain enough to be worth $1000 in one year. You have +$7.62 immediate cash flow. In one year repay the bond lender with the $1000 from the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8f2a0b3957abc9cff84a66aee8918af",
"text": "\"First - Welcome to Money.SE. You gave a lot of detail, and it's tough to parse out the single question. Actually, you have multiple issues. $1300 is what you need to pay the tax? In the 25% bracket plus 10% penalty, you have a 65% net amount. $1300/.65 = Exactly $2000. You withdraw $2000, have them (the IRA holder) withhold $700 in federal tax, and you're done. All that said, don't do it. Nathan's answer - payment plan with IRS - is the way to go. You've shared with us a important issue. Your budget is running too tight. We have a post here, \"\"the correct order of investing\"\" which provides a great guideline that applies to most visitors. You are missing the part that requires a decent sized emergency fund. In your case, calling it that, may be a misnomer, as the tax bill isn't an unexpected emergency, but something that should have been foreseeable. We have had a number of posts here that advocate the paid in full house. And I always respond that the emergency fund comes first. With $70K of income, you should have $35K or so of liquidity, money readily available. Tax due in April shouldn't be causing you this grief. Please read that post I linked and others here to help you with the budgeting issue. Last - You are in an enviable position, A half million dollars, no mortgage, mid 40s. Easily doing better than most. So, please forgive the soapbox tone of the above, it was just my \"\"see, that's what I'm talking about\"\" moment from my tenure here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "353f69910c12dc261482d6363c090c09",
"text": "\"I'd interpret it as \"\"Net Worth\"\" reached 1M where \"\"net worth\"\" = assets - liabilities.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c9f34a984c3fc84aa3b8bd0f4abd9af",
"text": "If you are going to put it into a banking system, just deposit it. Why did breaking it up even cross your mind? Like what would that even have accomplished, so you could pretend like you started moonlighting as a club bouncer if you were ever casually asked by a bank teller or federal agent? If you have to ever account for the source of your money, you will have to account for it regardless. You shouldn't worry about things that may trigger higher scrutiny on you, because it is pretty random. The financial institution may file a suspicious activity report any time they feel like it (which they routinely do without the customer's knowledge, for a wide range of reasons), and actually attempting to break it up into smaller deposits would mean the suspicious activity report would escalate into criminal charges. And regarding the IRS, if they ever audited you then you will still have to account for that $25,000 no matter what you did with it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15b788b4c1659b1bb97b9e014bb2e216",
"text": "You're off to a great start. Here are the steps I would take: 1.) Pay off any high-interest debt. 2.) Keep six to twelve months in a highly liquid emergency fund. If the banks aren't safe, also consider having one or two months of cash or cash-equivalents on the premises. 3.) Rent a larger apartment, if possible, until you've saved more. The cost of the land and construction will consume a very large portion of your net worth. Given the historical political instability in that region, mentioned by the previous comments, I would hesitate to put such a large percentage of your wealth in to real estate. 4.) Get a brokerage account that's insured and well known. If you're willing to take the five percent hit to move assets offshore, then consider Vanguard. I'm not sure if they'll give you an account but they're generally acknowledged as an amazing broker in the US with low fees and amazing funds. Five percent (12,500) is worth it in my opinion. As you accumulate more wealth, you can stop moving cash overseas and keep a larger mix domestically. 5.) Invest in your business and yourself even more. As far as finding new investment opportunities, I would go through the list of all the typical major asset classes and consider the pros and cons: fixed-income, stocks, currencies, real estate / REITs, own a small business, commodities etc.,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6505237c2b3c1430722426bc5eb31baa",
"text": "\"If all of the money needs to be liquid, T-Bills from a broker are the way to go. Treasury Direct is a little onerous -- I'm not sure that you could actually get money out of there in a week. If you can sacrifice some liquidity, I'd recommend a mix of treasury, brokered CDs, agency and municipal securities. The government has implicitly guaranteed that \"\"too big to fail\"\" entities are going to be backed by the faith & credit of the United States, so investments in general obligation bonds from big states like New York, California and Florida and cities like New York City will yield you better returns, come with significant tax benefits, and represent only marginal additional short-term risk.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b507736959e0c7c7a3ec0c3404ad7988
|
What effect would currency devaluation have on my investments?
|
[
{
"docid": "3f97d35bd94c664205c2929914af3cc9",
"text": "Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow. All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case. Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government. How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is. In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a70568de6258ac4ff20caf60647f630e",
"text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd8b84e461d61c7f379907a7ed788f9e",
"text": "\"My question boiled down: Do stock mutual funds behave more like treasury bonds or commodities? When I think about it, it seems that they should respond the devaluation like a commodity. I own a quantity of company shares (not tied to a currency), and let's assume that the company only holds immune assets. Does the real value of my stock ownership go down? Why? On December 20, 1994, newly inaugurated President Ernesto Zedillo announced the Mexican central bank's devaluation of the peso between 13% and 15%. Devaluing the peso after previous promises not to do so led investors to be skeptical of policymakers and fearful of additional devaluations. Investors flocked to foreign investments and placed even higher risk premia on domestic assets. This increase in risk premia placed additional upward market pressure on Mexican interest rates as well as downward market pressure on the Mexican peso. Foreign investors anticipating further currency devaluations began rapidly withdrawing capital from Mexican investments and selling off shares of stock as the Mexican Stock Exchange plummeted. To discourage such capital flight, particularly from debt instruments, the Mexican central bank raised interest rates, but higher borrowing costs ultimately hindered economic growth prospects. The question is how would they pull this off if it's a floatable currency. For instance, the US government devalued the US Dollar against gold in the 30s, moving one ounce of gold from $20 to $35. The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. But now, the US Dollar is not backed by anything, so how do they devalue it now (outside of intentionally inflating it)? The Hong Kong Dollar, since it is fixed to the US Dollar, could be devalued relative to the Dollar, going from 7.75 to 9.75 or something similar, so it depends on the currency. As for the final part, \"\"does the real value of my stock ownership go down\"\" the answer is yes if the stock ownership is in the currency devalued, though it may rise over the longer term if investors think that the value of the company will rise relative to devaluation and if they trust the market (remember a devaluation can scare investors, even if a company has value). Sorry that there's too much \"\"it depends\"\" in the answer; there are many variables at stake for this. The best answer is to say, \"\"Look at history and what happened\"\" and you might see a pattern emerge; what I see is a lot of uncertainty in past devaluations that cause panics.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d3207224e410452dea55c68e15e4aaf4",
"text": "Whether it's historically stronger or weaker isn't going to have an impact on you; the forex exposure you have is going forward if the exchange rates change you will have missed out on having more or less value by leaving it in a certain currency. (Ignoring fees) Say you exchange €85 for $100, if while you're in the US the Euro gets stronger than it currently is, and the exchange rate changes to €8:$10; then you will lose out on €5 if you try to change it back, and the opposite is true if the euro gets weaker than it currently is you would gain money on exchanging it back. Just look at it as though you're buying dollars like it were a commodity. If the euro gets stronger it buys more dollars and you should've held onto it in euros, if it gets weaker it buys less dollars and you were better off having it in dollars. You would want to use whichever currency you think will be weaker or gain the least against the dollar while you're here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "647740b4ae71f5a6f13b36593cb3f041",
"text": "The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4339890815d1bd9b8804bd8772f1081f",
"text": "Although not technically an answer to your question, I want to address why this is generally a bad idea. People normally put money into a savings account so that they can have quick access to it if needed, and because it is safe. You lose both of these advantages with a foreign account. You are looking at extra time and fees to receive access to the money in those australian accounts. And, more importantly, you are taking on substantial FX risk. Since 2000 the AUD exchange rate has gone from a low of 0.4845 to a high of 1.0972. Those swings are almost as large as the swings of the S&P. But, you're only getting an average return of 3.5%, instead of the average return people expect with stocks of 10%. A better idea would be to talk to a financial adviser who can help you find an investment that meets your risk tolerance, but gives you a better return than your savings account. On a final thought, the exception to this would be if you plan on spending significant time in Australia. Having money in a savings account there would actually allow you to mitigate some of your FX risk by allowing you to decide whether to convert USD when you are travelling, or using the money that you already have in your foreign account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3df65e68c8633ccfc01a4496253623f3",
"text": "How can I calculate my currency risk exposure? You own securities that are priced in dollars, so your currency risk is the amount (all else being equal) that your portfolio drops if the dollar depreciates relative to the Euro between now and the time that you plan to cash out your investments. Not all stocks, though, have a high correlation relative to the dollar. Many US companies (e.g. Apple) do a lot of business in foreign countries and do not necessarily move in line with the Dollar. Calculate the correlation (using Excel or other statistical programs) between the returns of your portfolio and the change in FX rate between the Dollar and Euro to see how well your portfolio correlated with that FX rate. That would tell you how much risk you need to mitigate. how can I hedge against it? There are various Currency ETFs that will track the USD/EUR exchange rate, so one option could be to buy some of those to offset your currency risk calculated above. Note that ETFs do have fees associated with them, although they should be fairly small (one I looked at had a 0.4% fee, which isn't terrible but isn't nothing). Also note that there are ETFs that employ currency risk mitigation internally - including one on the Nasdaq 100 . Note that this is NOT a recommendation for this ETF - just letting you know about alternative products that MIGHT meet your needs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eda543db876b5d150a730688db867bef",
"text": "This is called currency speculation, and it's one of the more risky forms of investing. Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you the Euro will move up (or down) relative to the Dollar, it's purely speculation, even if it seems like it's on an upswing. You have to remember that the people who are speculating (professionally) on currency are the reason that the amount changed, and it's because something caused them to believe the correct value is the current one - not another value in one direction or the other. This is not to say people don't make money on currency speculation; but unless you're a professional investor, who has a very good understanding of why currencies move one way or the other, or know someone who is (and gives free advice!), it's not a particularly good idea to engage in it - while stock trading is typically win-win, currency speculation is always zero-sum. That said, you could hedge your funds at this point (or any other) by keeping some money in both accounts - that is often safer than having all in one or the other, as you will tend to break even when one falls against the other, and not suffer significant losses if one or the other has a major downturn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38a479e3fac8a4d4deb5d8caa993d72a",
"text": "\"Having savings only in your home currency is relatively 'low risk' compared with other types of 'low diversification'. This is because, in a simple case, your future cash outflows will be in your home currency, so if the GBP fluctuates in value, it will (theoretically) still buy you the same goods at home. In this way, keeping your savings in the same currency as your future expenditures creates a natural hedge against currency fluctuation. This gets complicated for goods imported from other countries, where base price fluctuates based on a foreign currency, or for situations where you expect to incur significant foreign currency expenditures (retirement elsewhere, etc.). In such cases, you no longer have certainty that your future expenditures will be based on the GBP, and saving money in other currencies may make more sense. In many circumstances, 'diversification' of the currency of your savings may actually increase your risk, not decrease it. Be sure you are doing this for a specific reason, with a specific strategy, and not just to generally 'spread your money around'. Even in case of a Brexit, consider: what would you do with a bank account full of USD? If the answer is \"\"Convert it back to GBP when needed (in 6 months, 5 years, 30, etc.), to buy British goods\"\", then I wouldn't call this a way to reduce your risk. Instead, I would call it a type of investment, with its own set of risks associated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83d9ae6ad60870a09c431cbe4c9498a1",
"text": "\"I suggest that you're really asking questions surrounding three topics: (1) what allocation hedges your risks but also allows for upside? (2) How do you time your purchases so you're not getting hammered by exchange rates? (3) How do you know if you're doing ok? Allocations Your questions concerning allocation are really \"\"what if\"\" questions, as DoubleVu points out. Only you can really answer those. I would suggest building an excel sheet and thinking through the scenarios of at least 3 what-ifs. A) What if you keep your current allocations and anything in local currency gets cut in half in value? Could you live with that? B) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and your economy recovers... so stable items grow at 5% per year, but your local investments grow 50% for the next 3 years? Could you live with that missed opportunity? C) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and they grow at 5%... while SA continues a gradual slide? Remember that slow or flat growth in a stable currency is the same as higher returns in a declining currency. I would trust your own insights as a local, but I would recommend thinking more about how this plays out for your current investments. Timing You bring up concerns about \"\"timing\"\" of buying expensive foreign currencies... you can't time the market. If you knew how to do this with forex trading, you wouldn't be here :). Read up on dollar cost averaging. For most people, and most companies with international exposure, it may not beat the market in the short term, but it nets out positive in the long term. Rebalancing For you there will be two questions to ask regularly: is the allocation still correct as political and international issues play out? Have any returns or losses thrown your planned allocation out of alignment? Put your investment goals in writing, and revisit it at least once a year to evaluate whether any adjustments would be wise to make. And of course, I am not a registered financial professional, especially not in SA, so I obviously recommend taking what I say with a large dose of salt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ebc7fc2fe6982e3c3c583336b0bc7fb",
"text": "There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e92a5e3cfe7db5a782b9931710ff389d",
"text": "\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "605eb7aa548de18d74c5f4e178dd3731",
"text": "First, currencies are not an investment; they are a medium of exchange; that is, you use currency to buy goods and services and/or investments. The goods and services you intend to buy in your retirement are presumably going to be bought in your country; to buy these you will need your country's currency. The investments you intend to buy now require the currency of whatever country they are located in. If you want to buy shares in Microsoft you need USD; if you want shares in BHP-Billiton you need AUD or GBP (It is traded on two exchanges), if you want property in Kuwait you need KWD and if you want bonds in your country you need IDR. When you sell these later to buy the goods and services you were saving for you need to convert from whatever currency you get for selling them into whatever currency you need to buy. When you invest you are taking on risk for which you expect to be compensated for - the higher the risk you take the better the returns had better be because there is always the chance that they will be negative, right down to losing it all if you are unlucky. There is no 100% safe investment; if you want to make sure you get full value for your money spend it all right now! If you invest overseas then, in addition to all the other investment risks, you are adding currency risk as well. That is, the risk that when you redeem your investments the overseas currency will have fallen relative you your currency. One of the best ways of mitigating risk is diversification; which allows the same return at a lower risk (or a higher return at the same risk). A pure equity portfolio is not diversified across asset classes (hopefully it is diversified across the equities). Equities are a high risk-high yield class; particularly in a developing economy like Indonesia. If you are very young with a decades long investment horizon this may be OK but even then, a diversified portfolio will probably offer better rewards at the same risk. Diversifying into local cash, bonds and property with a little foreign equities, bonds and property will serve you better than worrying about the strength of the IDR. Oh, and pay a professional for some real advice rather than listening to strangers on the internet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfc83f88b6585b59ac0a6f5dd80350e4",
"text": "\"No money is gone. The movement of the existing currency has slowed down. Currency moves through the economy through deposits or loans to banks, and withdrawal from banks as proceeds from loans or return of deposits. When a bank makes a loan they provide a balance in a bank account, which isn't converted to hard currency until withdrawn. So those bank loans essentially count as currency, and thus effectively multiply the stock of currency available. Deposits into money market funds, and those funds loans into the commercial paper markets, have the same effect. Banks and money funds are now making fewer loans. In particular they are not funding \"\"companies\"\" that invested in securitizations of home mortgages and credit card receivables, but they are also lending less to businesses and consumers. Because they are lending less they are \"\"effectively multiplying\"\" the currency less. Think of deposited and lent currency as spare cycles on a desktop computer. You let your computer help decipher the genome when you aren't using it yourself. If you somehow feared that you would lose those cycles, slowing down your own computing, you would be less likely to lend those cycles out. There would still be the same number of computing cycles in the world, but the stock of those available for actual computing would appear to be diminished. The technical term for this concept is \"\"monetary velocity\"\" and it is a crucial factor in determing the level of overall economic activity, banking stability, and inflation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6cbf93cdf03f9730462f5dd3d3dd2d7",
"text": "\"Just to get the ball rolling, here's an answer: it won't affect you in the slightest. The pound happened to be tumbling anyway. (If you read \"\"in the papers\"\" that Brexit is \"\"making the pound fall\"\", that's as valuable as anything else you've ever read in the papers.) Currencies go up and down drastically all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it. We by fluke once bought a house in Australia when that currency was very low; over the next couple years the currency basically doubled (I mean per the USD) and we happened to sell it; we made a 1/2 million measured in USD. Just a fluke. I've had the opposite happen on other occasions over the decades. But... Currency changes mean absolutely nothing if you're in that country. The example from (2) was only relevant because we happened to be moving in and out of Aus. My various Australian friends didn't even notice that their dollar went from .5 to 1 in terms of USD (how could it matter to them?) All sorts of things drastically affect the general economy of a given country. (Indeed, note that a falling currency is often seen as a very good thing for a given nation's economy: conspiracy theorists in the states are forever complaining that ) Nobody has the slightest clue if \"\"Brexit\"\" will be good bad or indifferent for the UK. Anything could happen. It could be the beginning of an incredible period of growth for the UK (after all, why does Brussels not want your country to leave - goodwill?) and your house could triple in value in a year. Or, your house price could tumble to half in a year. Nobody has the slightest clue, whatsoever about the effects on the \"\"economy\"\" of a country going forward, of various inputs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feac8aba143a4a01affea2a93292e1ae",
"text": "\"If you live and work in the euro-zone, then even after a \"\"crash\"\" all of your income and most of your expenses will still be in euros. The only portion of your worth you need to worry about protecting is the portion you intend to spend on goods from outside the euro-zone (i.e. imports). In that case, you may want to consider parking some of your money in short-term government bonds issued by other countries, such as the UK, Switzerland, and USA (or wherever else your favorite goods tend to come from). If the euro actually \"\"massively devalues\"\" (an extremely unlikely scenario), then you can expect foreign goods to cost a lot more than they do now. Inflation might also pick up, so you might also want to purchase some OATis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f0da2c0e5a4bfa04bda19efad7eb01",
"text": "There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feea3c7cd647080a887e72b9affeb790",
"text": "\"Others have mentioned the exchange rate, but this can play out in various ways. One thing we've seen since the \"\"Brexit\"\" vote is that the GBP/USD has fallen dramatically, but the value of the FTSE has gone up. This is partly due to many the companies listed there operating largely outside the UK, so their value is more linked to the dollar than the pound. It can definitely make sense to invest in stocks in a country more stable than your own, if feasible and not too expensive. Some years ago I took the 50/50 UK/US option for my (UK) pension, and it's worked out very well so far.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
494277a52d8f9842dbb5697bbcd33b98
|
Why are Rausch Coleman houses so cheap? Is it because they don't have gas?
|
[
{
"docid": "1c35bbfb337903d6a35c8a8faba75cbd",
"text": "\"In northwest Arkansas, most of the houses this company offers do cost about 90 - 110 dollars per square foot. The exceptions use the Whitney plan, which has the following design features (and/or problems) which happen to save the builder a lot of money: One very nice feature is the U-shaped stairway in the center of the house. It is easy to find, and has an angled landing. It might be a bit narrow, though. Does the builder bother to put rebar in the brickwork? Arkansas is in earthquake country. What are the floors like? Is the first floor a slab concrete floor with vinyl flooring (and/or carpet on thin pad) immediately above the concrete? Is the second floor bouncy, due to using long-span joists of code-minimum size? Does the builder bother to make the rear windows look as nice as the front windows? As mentioned earlier, the builder only bothers to have one side window. Where to learn more: Fernando Pagés Ruiz is a Nebraska homebuilder who wrote a book on Building the Affordable House: Trade Secrets for High-Value, Low-Cost Construction (The Taunton Press, 2005). He has also written many articles in Fine Homebuilding, including \"\"Building Affordable Houses\"\". True North Consulting specializes in helping builders eliminate waste and \"\"value-engineer\"\" their designs. True North often works with Tim Garrison, the self-proclaimed \"\"builder's engineer\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5a34a10da259a898b35762b3f7f5875",
"text": "A 25% variance in price, in most markets, isn't so crazy as to require it be some sort of terrible scam, but that doesn't mean much else. It could be the inclusion of floor plans that are carefully designed to add square footage at minimum cost and thus reduce the average cost per square foot without actually being cheaper otherwise, less insulation, thinner walls, cheap piping, minimized wiring, or they are just efficient and competitive. As you pointed out they don't have gas, so that's certainly one way you know they cut costs - no gas lines to install! As the article from NAHB: Cost of Constructing A Home points out, though, what this figure includes can vary. Does it include the finished lot? If so then a smaller lot would mean lower square footage building price - because the land is smaller and cheaper, not the house! Is any kind of financing quoted in the price? Compare also change-plan costs, any penalties for delays in construction, grade of materials, floor plans, customization costs, fees or premiums to pick colors/floors/counters/cabinets/fixtures, and so on. What about central cooling and heating - are they quoting an electric furnace? How does electrical heating in your area compare to the cost of gas heat? (relative pricing of electric and gas vary widely by region and climate) In short: often square footage price isn't the whole story of what it would cost to construct a home. Ensure you are comparing everything that's important to you and you are getting a full quote, not comparing small isolate sales-pitch figures with no clear details. If it turns out the price is 25% lower than other builders in your area and they give you what you are wanting, and you have the good sense to have a qualified home inspector and/or structural engineer inspect the home thoroughly before you take possession, then you might just have found a good builder! I'd encourage you to personally visit some of their past construction work, such as houses they build 2-10 years ago and ensure they are in the sort of condition you'd expect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e3484e56a95cdd2facb4a8b185f897b",
"text": "I am a realtor and work for Rausch Coleman and can answer this question for you. We are a production builder. We build in communities with typically 5-9 Floorplan options per community and a select set of option and finishes that we offer. Because of the set options, we buy the materials in bulk and are able to receive cost savings on that from our suppliers which we can pass on to you. We use the same trades consistently through out our division which means they have our plans and process down to a science. They know the product, which means less likely to make mistakes and less likely to miss things. Our heart is affordability in that we understand that not everyone can afford granite, gas, hardwood floors, etc. so we allow you to be able to customize your monthly payment, and that you are not financing something you may not want or need or to allow you to get in to a home you may not be able to afford otherwise. We work a lot with the first time buyer and we want to provide the best quality for the best value. We start our homes at a base model and allow you to customize the way you want (adding granite, gas, hardwoods, fireplace, etc.) and in doing that we allow you to choose whether you want to pay $90 or $101 per square foot or whatever that may be. I can tell you in Northwest Arkansas we are the best value and the quality shows. I pull comps consistently and in fact have another builder in the same community as I sell in. Our homes in this community for single stories is about $88-$95 and two story homes are on average $78-$86. Two stories are more cost efficient in that the square footage goes up and not out so there is less concrete, which is one of the most expensive parts of the homebuilding process. This other builder consistently sells their homes for $101-$105 per square foot, and uses the exact same materials we do. The difference? Yes granite and hardwoods and gas and custom cabinets come standard, you have no choice in that. Would you rather have the option for a lower priced home if you didn't want granite? Or if you'd rather have carpet? We build in 5 different markets over 4 states and are in our 61st year of business. I'd love to meet with you and can walk you through a community and show you our homes (at all stages of construction) where you can see the product and quality in our homes. I am in our Dixieland Crossing community here in Northwest Arkansas. You can check out our website for other information at www.rauschcoleman.com",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a452e8bf487ad78a8b285b0644ee5243",
"text": "The reason Rausch Coleman homes are generally cheaper, is because they are a high volume dealer. Their communities usually have 5 to 7 floor plan options only. They get exceptional deals on their materials because of the volume of material bought. They have it down to a science when it comes to the numbers. As far as the quality of their homes, I cant answer that. I have never been in one or known of anyone that has bought one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73b6dc0583e3a749924ff89c8f85afc8",
"text": "Not only are they high volume but also most finish materials are very basic. For example lighting fixtures, most builders put ceiling fans in all bedrooms ($75) where Rausch coleman uses a flush mount ($15) in the spare bedrooms. Same with flooring they use a vinyl plank where most builders use wood. This can be $1sqft or more cheaper. Cabinets, carpet, tile, countertops, faucets, all they same. These are all cosmetics and you can save a ton of money while building by doing this and still build a quality home. Rausch Coleman builds a quality home at an affordable price by keeping the cosmetics basic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0cb1794fc5da184d61f5449da4e3920",
"text": "They are cheap because they are made from cheap material. All the homes in my addition are Ruasch Coleman and a lot of them are having issues (Oklahoma). Several are around 5 years old and have already had to get new roofs. On our neighborhood FB page there have been complaints with the plumbing system and flooding in yards that weren't leveled properly once the ground settled. I know I regret my purchase. You get what you pay for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2f38829d925292637d6f35390b08d32",
"text": "Research the company that is all I can say this company has horrible reviews. They show on their Facebook page great reviews but if you really look through all reviews the high ratings are from past and current employees. All other reviews from actual home owners are bad. They make a lot of false promises and build very cheap homes that will not last without several costly problems within the near future. Most people that buy one of their houses sell it within a few years because they start having so many problems. They have outside vendors doing all the work and do not make these vendors very accountable. I know I was a manager with Rausch for several years. STAY AWAY!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39b61ec642fc1355b0b87f6cb56ea075",
"text": "I have lived in my RC Home since 2008 and I have had ZERO PROBLEMS! We are in the process of building another RC home in a different community. The only thing I've done was replace the roof ONLY because of a very bad hail storm (baseball sized) that came through OKC. My mom also purchased a RC home in 2007 and didn't have any problems. What buyers have to do is be involved the whole time before, during, and after the build. Take lots of pictures of the entire process if you can. We went by our build daily (we didn't live that far), but if you can go by your build at least once a week, it helps. During my inspection, there was a hairline crack in the baseboard and it was corrected immediately. If you have a good inspector and sales rep that genuinely cares, you will be just fine and will love your home. Good Job RC HOMES!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e1ec72616744f5288cdd7ad4f21f7e5",
"text": "I walked into my sister's new Rausch Coleman house this afternoon to help her move in and told her to make sure that they put on the hot water heater room door in the garage on when they come back to take care of the final touch ups. I also said and don't let them forget to paint the garage because I noticed while driving through her neighborhood that everyone had taped and mudded garages but no paint. She told me that Rausch Coleman was not coming back to do any touch ups. I said what about this stuff?!?!!!!! My sister said the house does not come with a door for the hot water heater or the garage being painted. Are you SERIOUS?????? That's like not putting the covers on your electrical outlets...your kidding me that this does not come in the base package. Shame on you Raush Coleman. Your prices are not that cheap to not include that. That is what I call bad customer service and ripping off your clients. The paint job is hideous. Let's just say my 9 year old could do a better job than that. The mirrors in her bathrooms are not hung centered and is so obvious. She went to open her dishwasher and it came out of the hole because it was never anchored down. I could go on and on!!!!!! Do not use this builder!!!!!!!",
"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": "35d19da976c557e53da33983f6993199",
"text": "I live in suburban Washington DC. The houses in my old neighborhood that used to sell for $500K to $600K were renting for about $2,500 because that's all the market could bear. My mortgage was about $3,100 but I could never have rented it out for that. Owners were taking a loss every month just to keep the house. Like I said earlier though, that same house is now only worth $328K. They're still renting for the same $2,500 per month that they did before the value plummeted. I did downsize a bit when I moved to my new house. Went from 4 very large bedrooms to 4 moderate bedrooms (1 is kinda small) and went from 3 bathrooms to 2. But the plot is much larger now than my previous house. Before felt like a McMansion and now it feels like a cozy cottage but I'm sure a lot of that is my perception of the whole situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e6a493fd06e1f7e0d9715e41eb812c1",
"text": "I lucked out and bought a beat little 640 sq. ft. bungalow in S.E. Mass for short money in 2008 hoping that I'd be able to build up some equity and upsell into a nicer house (i.e. one with more than three rooms and a roof that doesn't leak). The good news (I guess) is that I'll be paid off in just a few years, but the bad news is that this little bungalow will have to do for a long time. House prices in the places that I'd like to live are through the roof, and if you're not a cash buyer you're pretty well fucked. I can't afford to sell without the hope that I'd be able to actually buy another house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "745b51f26e5c55cd55d7ee420bdd880b",
"text": "So like any market, the housing market will *on average* trend upward. But the extreme prices we're seeing in Toronto or San Francisco are not part of the normal market growth. There's a lot of factors that can affect housing outside of just increased demand. Here's a few of the big ones. 1) Low-Interest Rates: Since (2008? I think) interests rates have been really low, meaning mortgages are really low. If you can borrow money at 4% and the inflation rate is 8%, you've borrowed expensive dollars and are paying back in cheap dollars. 2)NIMBY (Not in my back yard): If you have enough land to build 10 houses or one 100 apartment building, what do you build? Theoretically the apartment building, but in reality, the people that already paid for their million dollar house, don't want a giant apartment complex bringing down the value of the neighborhood and ruining their views. So they pass laws preventing new and bigger buildings, meaning higher prices for the homes that already exist. And as a bonus, it's easier on the city to have 10 people who make a million dollars a year than a 100 people who make 100,000 a year. Foreign investment: So there's a lot of places where people have money, but because of corruption or shaky economies, it's not safe to hold it there. So you buy properties in the U.S. or Canada because you know no one's going to seize it and it's (generally) not going to lose value. So you end up with foreign dollars competing with the local markets for housing, driving the price up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8dd552412eec9132788f4e116ee36f7",
"text": "Houses depreciate. Period. Things break: the hot water heater explodes, the AC cuts out in August, the roof leaks, the basement floods, toilets back up, raccoons dig up the garden. Each time something breaks, the house loses value. Every year the paint fades a little, the house loses value. Every time GE comes out with a more efficient washing machine, the house loses value. The only reason a house appears to maintain its value over time is because the money you spend repairing and improving it offsets this unavoidable depreciation. Even then, over extended periods of time it will typically just track inflation--so you're treading water. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You need to live somewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e2892b536c0fcfaa8e1d92235952b3a",
"text": "The market can only bear so many high-priced mini-mansions. It's like a car dealership trying to sell Lexus and BMWs in a neighborhood where everybody can only afford a base model Honda. There is plenty of housing, but not enough housing that is affordable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df432465810e4185e2dabe8fc26ba5cc",
"text": "There was a house for sale at around $400k or $500k if my memory serves me posted to /r/Boston a little ways back that was from a poorer city in Massachusetts that was covered in bullet holes and was totally trashed inside. It had been spray painted and was missing a raised porch from one of the upper floors so this door just opened up to nothing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dff7a97bab103eb6fd2a8bc6f286781b",
"text": "Yeah, the federal gas tax has been 18.4 cents per gallon since I think 1920's and states add another 20 to 55 cents per gallon, but it is nowhere near enough to cover costs. And I grew up in Illinois, nothing has changed much (I don't remember when we didn't have a former governor in jail).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05cd46be385369599415155435befba7",
"text": "Thanks for the feedback obelus, The cost is $20,000 to 50,000 sqft. Ya I am just looking for a rough idea of what a similar newer building is costing I figured what we are paying is really high as the building is extremely old and designated as a heritage site so we can't just knock it down. Beautiful building just not very efficient. The newer building is the route I think we are gonna end up going not sure what we can do with the current building as not too many options for resale. We can't adjust the lease rates to compensate for the cost as the tenants are all seniors and it is an integrated care home. A change to apartments would prove difficult as there are no kitchens in 90% of the suites. We are currently paying approximately $0.40 psf a month to heat (All electric) and the estimate for the new building is $0.1425 psf (Geothermal) so it is a pretty huge impact in comparison if it is possible but I haven't heard of a real building actually costing that little before. Thanks for the suggestion for the IR I think I am gonna get some one in after the holidays to do a inspection to see if there is any short term fixes we can do with our system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a327e3ac3638d205a64878b332f962a",
"text": "How do prices of an apartment/house correlate to prices becoming more manageable in manufactured goods? I could also say that housing is not a good proxy seeing as how prices in housing differ depending on where you live. I can also point out that more is going into buildings like double paned glass and better materials which would also raise prices on your home. Yet a computer is much better than today than 35 years ago, and the exact opposite thing happened. I can also say that there is less timber today than 35 years ago, making the price of wood go up. I can also get into boring things like Bid Rent Theory, but what's the fun in that? Nearly all manufactured goods have gone down in price. Thanks to more open robust trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d375d8994b009877061e2a7b520df26b",
"text": "This is the exact reason I don't live in an expensive city. I turned down a job offer in DC paying 60k right out of school because I could get a similar salary in the midwest and pay about half as much in living expenses. --Sent from a 2 bedroom apartment in an urban area with included laundry facilities for $750/month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dcee736dd88f2b6ef888eae675389bc",
"text": "\"It depends on the area, but right in Toronto there's not a whole lot of development, but like starter townhouses (3 storey, modern/executive look, around 2000sq ft) start around 750k. Older and run houses, depending on area can go from 600-1.4 million, but it's heavily dependent on area. In a \"\"good\"\" area, you'll see completely run down shacks going for 1.4 million. I'm not sure exactly who's buying these houses, but banks aren't giving as many loans now, so I assume people are going private for mortgages. There are incentives for first time home buyers where you don't need much of a down payment (it was around 10%, but I think it's gone up), however something called \"\"mortgage insurance\"\" is required, in the case of a default. Rent is sky high as well, and rentals are just as expensive as mortgages, however without the \"\"commitment\"\". Cheap rentals never come up, and there is sort of an internal issue with realtors who essentially hike up the prices, however things have cooled off as of late. I always remember my parents saying that we good do down to the states and buy a house for less than 100k, especially after '08. Houses just seem to have more value in Canada, even in less sought after areas more north\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a27958ad6096ac8dbad7d69b7e70f29",
"text": "It's tricky to calculate what us Europeans pay equivalent to US 'gas' (petrol) prices. I currently pay about €72 for ~42litres of petrol. Heard on the radio that we pay the equivalent of ~$9/US gallon for petrol. Why haven't the Germans gone all electric with their Mercs and Beemers? With the prices we pay it would make even more sense over this side of the pond. It's strange to wait for Tesla to mass-produce the electric car. Shorter average distances too mean shorter commutes, so the range issue of batteries is also more favourable to European geography.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "489d1e134de0835ce9a4167d33cb6f26",
"text": "Chances are since college is your next likely step I would recommend saving up for it. Start building an emergency fund. Recommended $1,000 minimum. To start building your credit rating (when 18) get a low interest low limit credit. Pay off the balance every month. Starting to build your credit rating now can save you hundreds of thousands when buying a house over the course of paying it off. ie. cheaper interest rate. As for investing, the sooner you can get started the better. Acquire preferred/stocks/bonds/REITs/ETFs/etc that pay you to own them (they pay you dividends monthly/quarterly/etc). Stick with solid stocks that have a history of consistently increasing their dividends over time and that are solid companies. I personally follow the work/advice of Derek Foster. He's not a professional but he retired at 34. His first book (Stop working - Here's how you can) is great and recommend it to anyone who is looking to get started. Also check out Ramit Sethi's blog I Will Teach You to be Rich. He focuses on big wins which save you a lot over the long term. He's also got some great advice for students as well. Best of luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c56ce18ddd5d3201fd1a73b21475e23f",
"text": "While volume per trade is higher at the open and to a lesser extent at the close, the overall volume is actually lower, on average. Bid ask spreads are widest at the open and to a lesser extent at the close. Generally, bid ask spreads are inversely proportional to overall volumes. Why this is the case hasn't been sufficiently clearly answered by academia yet, but some theories are that",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
73c567678926419a9e6c6e293de3b455
|
What determines the price of fixed income ETFs?
|
[
{
"docid": "b0d570729d6309ccf9878653379d3654",
"text": "The literal answer to your question 'what determines the price of an ETF' is 'the market'; it is whatever price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept. But if the market price of an ETF share deviates significantly from its NAV, the per-share market value of the securities in its portfolio, then an Authorized Participant can make an arbitrage profit by a transaction (creation or redemption) that pushes the market price toward NAV. Thus as long as the markets are operating and the APs don't vanish in a puff of smoke we can expect price will track NAV. That reduces your question to: why does NAV = market value of the holdings underlying a bond ETF share decrease when the market interest rate rises? Let's consider an example. I'll use US Treasuries because they have very active markets, are treated as risk-free (although that can be debated), and excluding special cases like TIPS and strips are almost perfectly fungible. And I use round numbers for convenience. Let's assume the current market interest rate is 2% and 'Spindoctor 10-year Treasury Fund' opens for business with $100m invested (via APs) in 10-year T-notes with 2% coupon at par and 1m shares issued that are worth $100 each. Now assume the interest rate goes up to 3% (this is an example NOT A PREDICTION); no one wants to pay par for a 2% bond when they can get 3% elsewhere, so its value goes down to about 0.9 of par (not exactly due to the way the arithmetic works but close enough) and Spindoctor shares similarly slide to $90. At this price an investor gets slightly over 2% (coupon*face/basis) plus approximately 1% amortized capital gain (slightly less due to time value) per year so it's competitive with a 3% coupon at par. As you say new bonds are available that pay 3%. But our fund doesn't hold them; we hold old bonds with a face value of $100m but a market value of only $90m. If we sell those bonds now and buy 3% bonds to (try to) replace them, we only get $90m par value of 3% bonds, so now our fund is paying a competitive 3% but NAV is still only $90. At the other extreme, say we hold the 2% bonds to maturity, paying out only 2% interest but letting our NAV increase as the remaining term (duration) and thus discount of the bonds decreases -- assuming the market interest rate doesn't change again, which for 10 years is probably unrealistic (ignoring 2009-2016!). At the end of 10 years the 2% bonds are redeemed at par and our NAV is back to $100 -- but from the investor's point of view they've forgone $10 in interest they could have received from an alternative investment over those 10 years, which is effectively an additional investment, so the original share price of $90 was correct.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "141996ecd5b6a61868abb87b8a3326de",
"text": "In my experiences most hedge funds won't have a benchmark in their mandate and are evaluated based upon absolute returns. Their benchmarks are generally cash + x basis points. So, no attribution and no IR. No experience at all with CTA's though, so not sure how things are there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a6e37f08518df040676b360a9c70ad7",
"text": "You bring up good points, but the balance of power works both ways. Investment Banks need ratings in order to push through with fixed income issuance. If rating agencies refuse to rate a product (and it has happened, I know we are shocked!), investors will be far less likely to participate and will demand substantially higher rates of return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be1b32a07b443f30339d679ae66b7750",
"text": "There are the EDHEC-risk indices based on similar hedge fund types but even then an IR would give you performance relative to the competition, which is not useful for most hf's as investors don't say I want to buy a global macro fund, vs a stat arb fund, investors say I want to pay a guy to give me more money! Most investors don't care how the OTHER funds did or where the market went, they want that NAV to go always up , which is why a modified sharpe is probably better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a2fb8987853dd7bb42da0a18d64dd5a",
"text": "The ETF price quoted on the stock exchange is in principle not referenced to NAV. The fund administrator will calculate and publish the NAV net of all fees, but the ETF price you see is determined by the market just like for any other security. Having said that, the market will not normally deviate greatly from the NAV of the fund, so you can safely assume that ETF quoted price is net of relevant fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "446c12b0d6ce872ec6a585017050af10",
"text": "\"Does the bolded sentence apply for ETFs and ETF companies? No, the value of an ETF is determined by an exchange and thus the value of the share is whatever the trading price is. Thus, the price of an ETF may go up or down just like other securities. Money market funds can be a bit different as the mutual fund company will typically step in to avoid \"\"Breaking the Buck\"\" that could happen as a failure for that kind of fund. To wit, must ETF companies invest a dollar in the ETF for every dollar that an investor deposited in this aforesaid ETF? No, because an ETF is traded as shares on the market, unless you are using the creation/redemption mechanism for the ETF, you are buying and selling shares like most retail investors I'd suspect. If you are using the creation/redemption system then there are baskets of other securities that are being swapped either for shares in the ETF or from shares in the ETF.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49773cdbed7cb67df748f6a0a64f017b",
"text": "What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daeb68910f70be984d51f671d0e67cae",
"text": "The Creation/Redemption mechanism is how shares of an ETF are created or redeemed as needed and thus is where there can be differences in what the value of the holdings can be versus the trading price. If the ETF is thinly traded, then the difference could be big as more volume would be where the mechanism could kick in as generally there are blocks required so the mechanism usually created or redeemed in lots of 50,000 shares I believe. From the link where AP=Authorized Participant: With ETFs, APs do most of the buying and selling. When APs sense demand for additional shares of an ETF—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a premium to its NAV—they go into the market and create new shares. When the APs sense demand from investors looking to redeem—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a discount—they process redemptions. So, suppose the NAV of the ETF is $20/share and the trading price is $30/share. The AP can buy the underlying securities for $20/share in a bulk order that equates to 50,000 shares of the ETF and exchange the underlying shares for new shares in the ETF. Then the AP can turn around and sell those new ETF shares for $30/share and pocket the gain. If you switch the prices around, the AP would then take the ETF shares and exchange them for the underlying securities in the same way and make a profit on the difference. SEC also notes this same process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85f152040d50f0973d1afa6b3af5da2d",
"text": "Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything. The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares. Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple. Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion. Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion. It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdf6d44b9b633d26c622da16169598a4",
"text": "They can rebalance and often times at a random manager's discretion. ETF's are just funds, and funds all have their own conditions, read the prospectus, thats the only source of truth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec247f0c4dd08895e0d66bc032d9b8b1",
"text": "The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e54c4372e2aa2d8e207a2711cf44c3e6",
"text": "I stumbled on the same discrepancy, and was puzzled by a significant difference between the two prices on ETR and FRA. For example, today is Sunday, and google shows the following closing prices for DAI. FRA:DAI: ETR:DAI: So it looks like there are indeed two different exchanges trading at different prices. Now, the important value here, is the last column (Volume). According to Wikipedia, the trading on Frankfort Stock Exchange is done today exclusively via Xetra platform, thus the volume on ETR:DAI is much more important than on FRA:DAI. Obviously, they Wikipedia is not 100% accurate, i.e. not all trading is done electronically via Xetra. According to their web-page, Frankfort exchange has a Specialist Trading on Frankfurt Floor service which has slightly different trading hours. I suspect what Google and Yahoo show as Frankfort exchange is this manual trading via a Specialist (opposed to Xetra electronic trading). To answer your question, the stock you're having is exactly the same, meaning if you bought an ETR:BMW you can still sell it on FRA (by calling a FRA Trading Floor Specialist which will probably cost you a fee). On the other hand, for the portfolio valuation and performance assessments you should only use ETR:BMW prices, because it is way more liquid, and thus better reflect the current market valuation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d70b1f6ea23c653659e2ab13df81f468",
"text": "\"Because ETFs, unlike most other pooled investments, can be easily shorted, it is possible for institutional investors to take an arbitrage position that is long the underlying securities and short the ETF. The result is that in a well functioning market (where ETF prices are what they should be) these institutional investors would earn a risk-free profit equal to the fee amount. How much is this amount, though? ETFs exist in a very competitive market. Not only do they compete with each other, but with index and mutual funds and with the possibility of constructing one's own portfolio of the underlying. ETF investors are very cost-conscious. As a result, ETF fees just barely cover their costs. Typically, ETF providers do not even do their own trading. They issue new shares only in exchange for a bundle of the underlying securities, so they have almost no costs. In order for an institutional investor to make money with the arbitrage you describe, they would need to be able to carry it out for less than the fees earned by the ETF. Unlike the ETF provider, these investors face borrowing and other shorting costs and limitations. As a result it is not profitable for them to attempt this. Note that even if they had no costs, their maximum upside would be a few basis points per year. Lots of low-risk investments do better than that. I'd also like to address your question about what would happen if there was an ETF with exorbitant fees. Two things about your suggested outcome are incorrect. If short sellers bid the price down significantly, then the shares would be cheap relative to their stream of future dividends and investors would again buy them. In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling. The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose. At first brokers start charging additional fees. As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a \"\"locate,\"\" which takes time and costs money. Finally they will not allow you to short at all. Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers. There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying. This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty. In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2e0d7a672ee7c3c4b620d4ded62c195",
"text": "leveraged etf's are killer to hold because they seek to return some multiple of the DAILY price movement in an index. so twm seeks to return 2x the daily move in the russell 2000 Let's trace this out assuming (just to make it easy) large daily moves, and that you start with $1000 and the russell 2000 starts at 100. start of first day rusell 2000 == 100 you have $1000 end of first day (up 10% nice!) rusell 2000 == 110 you have $1200 end of second day (~9.1% down) russell 20000 == 100 you have $981.60 so the russell 2000 can move nowhere and you have lost money! This doesn't apply to all etf's just leveraged etf's. You would be better buying more of a straight inverse etf (RWM) and holding that for a longer time if you wanted to hedge.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65f91e745690772d877a58ac6472cded",
"text": "You set it based on liquidity management. Cash drag is one of the reasons actively managed funds underperform. The longer your settlement date, the less cash you have to hold because you can take three days to liquidate positions to redeem. So it's a convenience vs performance question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0400607794f04d15bf9fdfe8a22e00b3",
"text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d2be780adcd1acc7d28db1f687d68f54
|
401(k) Investment stategies
|
[
{
"docid": "8b473900266d99d7287e105b68cc01dd",
"text": "\"You could end up with nothing, yes. I imagine those that worked at Enron years ago if their 401(k) was all in company stock would have ended up with nothing to give an example here. However, more likely is for you to end up with less than you thought as you see other choices as being better that with the benefit of hindsight you wish you had made different choices. The strategies will vary as some people will want something similar to a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" kind of investment and there may be fund choices where a fund has a targeted retirement date some years out into the future. These can be useful for people that don't want to do a lot of research and spend time deciding amongst various choices. Other people may prefer something a bit more active. In this case, you have to determine how much work do you want to do, do you want to review fund reviews on places like Morningstar, and do periodic reviews of your investments, etc. What works best for you is for you to resolve for yourself. As for risks, here are a few possible categories: Time - How many hours a week do you want to spend on this? How much time learning this do you want to do in the beginning? While this does apply to everyone, you have to figure out for yourself how much of a cost do you want to take here. Volatility - Some investments may fluctuate in value and this can cause issues for some people as it may change more than they would like. For example, if you invest rather aggressively, there may be times where you could have a -50% return in a year and that isn't really acceptable to some people. Inflation - Similarly to those investments that vary wildly there is also the risk that with time, prices generally rise and thus there is something to be said for the purchasing power of your investment. If you want to consider this in more detail consider what $1,000,000 would have bought 30 years ago compared to now. Currency risk - Some investments may be in other currencies and thus there is a risk of how different denominations may impact a return. Fees - How much do your fund's charge in the form of annual expense ratio? Are you aware of the charges being taken to manage your money here?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78fd0dd4f790f86621a72a8b8910ec63",
"text": "Ending up with nothing is an unlikely situation unless you invest 100% in a company stock and the company goes under. In order to give you a good answer we need to see what options your employer gives for 401k investments. The best advice would be to take a list of all options that your employer allows and talk with a financial advisor. Here are a few options that you may or may not have as an option from an employer: Definitions from wikipedia: A target-date fund – also known as a lifecycle, dynamic-risk or age-based fund – is a collective investment scheme, usually a mutual fund, designed to provide a simple investment solution through a portfolio whose asset allocation mix becomes more conservative as the target date (usually retirement) approaches. An index fund or index tracker is a collective investment scheme (usually a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund) that aims to replicate the movements of an index of a specific financial market... An exchange-traded fund (ETF) is an investment fund traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks.[1] An ETF holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds, and trades close to its net asset value over the course of the trading day. Most ETFs track an index, such as a stock index or bond index. ETFs may be attractive as investments because of their low costs, tax efficiency, and stock-like features. The capital stock (or stock) of an incorporated business constitutes the equity stake of its owners. Which one can you lose everything in? You can lose everything in stocks by the company going under. In Index funds the entire market that it follows would have to collapse. The chances are slim here since the index made up of several companies. The S&P 500 is made up of 500 leading companies publicly traded in the U.S. A Pacific-Europe index such as MSCI EAFE Index is made up of 907 companies. The chances of losing everything in an ETF are also slim. The ETF that follows the S&P 500 is made up of 500 companies. An Pacific-Europe ETF such as MSCI EAFE ETF is made up of 871 companies. Target date funds are also slim to lose everything. Target date funds are made up of several companies like indexes and etfs and also mix in bonds and other investments depending on your age. What would I recommend? I would recommend the Index funds and/or ETFs that have the lowest fee that make up the following strategy for your age: Why Not Target Date Funds or Stocks? Target date funds have high fees. Later in life when you are closer to retirement you may want to add bonds to your portfolio. At that time if this is the only option to add bonds then you can change your elections. Stocks are too risky for you with your current knowledge. If your company matches by buying their stock you may want to consider reallocating that stock at certain points to your Index funds or ETFs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c8b263ff314dc2a10885ee319673b4b7",
"text": "\"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\"\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \"\"play money\"\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\"",
"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": "188dd86c3c336b20a110fb5413285e31",
"text": "\"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b109a70decdde42f25cf90204e3864d",
"text": "Does the 401(k) get any match? Whatever you do, don't lose the match. Without more detail, it's tough. Will you lose more sleep for the debt rising, or for the retire account not? It seems your debt is well managed, a year to zero? A student loan wouldn't scare me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9608373ac4641fd3bf118810516a650",
"text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef335ddf7b8b6c077fd5831a9f3447b6",
"text": "\"Sometimes 403b's contain annuities or other insurance related instruments. I know that in many New York schools the local teacher unions administer the 403b plan, and sometimes choose proprietary investments like variable annuities or other insurance products. In New York the Attorney General sued and settled with the state teacher's union for their endorsement of a high cost ING 403b plan -- I believe the maintenance fees were in excess of 3%/year! In a tax deferred plan like a 401k, 403b or 457 plan, the low risk \"\"insurance fund\"\" is generally a GIC \"\"Guaranteed Investment Contract\"\". A GIC (aka \"\"Stable Value Fund\"\") is sort of cross between a CD and a Money Market fund. It's used by insurance companies to raise short term capital. GICs usually yield a premium versus a money market and are a safe investment. If your wife is in a 403b with annuities or other life-insurance tie ins other than GICs, make sure that you understand the fee structure and ask lots of questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "4fb93947461cf2614b37f4ea50bbec9b",
"text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20f7479b8a5c1d1d02e6f603d3fbd0c6",
"text": "There are several variables to consider. Taxes, fees, returns. Taxes come in two stages. While adding money to the account you can save on state taxes, if the account is linked to your state. If you use an out of state 529 plan there is no tax savings. Keep in mind that other people (such as grandparents) can set aside money in the 529 plan. $1500 a year with 6% state taxes, saves you $90 in state taxes a year. The second place it saves you taxes is that the earnings, if they are used for educational purposes are tax free. You don't pay taxes on the gains during the 10+ years the account exists. If those expenses meet the IRS guidelines they will never be taxed. It does get tricky because you can't double dip on expenses. A dollar from the 529 plan can't be used to pay for an expenses that will be claimed as part of the education tax credit. How those rules will change in the next 18 years is unknown. Fees: They are harder to guess what will happen over the decades. As a whole 401(k) programs have had to become more transparent regarding their fees. I hope the same will be true for the state run 529 programs. Returns: One option in many (all?) plans is an automatic change in risk as the child gets closer to college. A newborn will be all stock, a high school senior will be all bonds. Many (all?) also allow you to opt out of the automatic risk shift, though they will limit the number of times you can switch the option. Time horizon Making a decision that will impact numbers 18 years from now is hard to gauge. Laws and rules may change. The existence of tax breaks and their rules are hard to predict. But one area you can consider is that if you move states you can roll over the money into a new account, or create a second account in the new state. to take advantage of the tax breaks there. There are also rules regarding transferring of funds to another person, the impact of scholarships, and attending schools like the service academies. The tax breaks at deposit are important but the returns can be significant. And the ability shelter them in the 529 is very important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "909eae1d15d84e2380144c2af50e1f14",
"text": "My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more.",
"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": "1930c68a28a19e4e2979740472fa1ec1",
"text": "This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5394995b18736e3123af489412bcab30",
"text": "\"My two cents: I am a pension actuary and see the performance of funds on a daily basis. Is it normal to see down years? Yes, absolutely. It's a function of the directional bias of how the portfolio is invested. In the case of a 401(k) that almost always mean a positive directional bias (being long). Now, in your case I see two issues: The amount of drawdown over one year. It is atypical to have a 14% loss in a little over a year. Given the market conditions, this means that you nearly experienced the entire drawdown of the SP500 (which your portfolio is highly correlated to) and you have no protection from the downside. The use of so-called \"\"target-date funds\"\". Their very implication makes no sense. Essentially, they try to generate a particular return over the elapsed time until retirement. The issue is that the market is by all statistical accounts random with positive drift (it can be expected to move up in the long term). This positive drift is due to the fact that people should be paid to take on risk. So if you need the money 20 years from now, what's the big deal? Well, the issue is that no one, and I repeat, no one, knows when the market will experience long down moves. So you happily experience positive drift for 20 years and your money grows to a decent size. Then, right before you retire, the market shaves 20%+ of your investments. Will you recoup these damages? Most likely yes. But will that be in the timeframe you need? The market doesn't care if you need money or not. So, here is my advice if you are comfortable taking control of your money. See if you can roll your money into an IRA (some 401(k) plans will permit this) or, if you contribute less that the 401(k) contribution limit you make want to just contribute to an IRA (be mindful of the annual limits). In this case, you can set up a self-directed account. Here you will have the flexibility to diversify and take action as necessary. And by diversify, I don't mean that \"\"buy lots of different stuff\"\" garbage, I mean focus on uncorrelated assets. You can get by on a handful of ETFs (SPY, TLT, QQQ, ect.). These all have liquid options available. Once you build a base, you can lower basis by writing covered calls against these positions. This is allowed in almost all IRA accounts. In my opinion, and I see this far too often, your potential and drive to take control of your assets is far superior than the so called \"\"professionals or advisors\"\". They will 99% of the time stick you in a target date fund and hope that they make their basis points on your money and retire before you do. Not saying everyone is unethical, but its hard to care about your money more than you will.\"",
"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": "0d748bd4ea29786d0b5714c37cbe35e6",
"text": "My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cff0cfb1dd486eb59315343a9f5bb381
|
What is a normal amount of money to spend per week on food/entertainment/clothing?
|
[
{
"docid": "fc9a5b1af8c773dbf2e50e14fa7421dd",
"text": "\"I'll start with a question... Is the 63K before or after taxes? The short answer to your question on how much is reasonable is: \"\"It depends.\"\" It depends on a lot more than where you live, it depends on what you want... do you want to pay down debt? Do you want to save? Are you trying to buy a house? Those will influence how much you \"\"can\"\" (should let yourselves) spend. It also depends on your actual salary... just because I spend 5% of my salary on something doesn't mean bonkers to you if you're making 63,000 and I'm only making 10,000. I also have a lot of respect for you trying to take this on. It's never easy. But I would also recommend you start by trying to see what you can do to track how much you are actually spending. That can be hard, especially if you mostly use cash. Once you're tracking what you spend, I still think you're coming at this a bit backwards though... rather than ask 'how much is reasonable' to spend on those other expenses, you basically need to rule out the bigger items first. This means things like taxes, your housing, food, transportation, and kid-related expenses. (I've got 2.5 kids of my own.) I would guess that you're listing your pre-tax salaries on here... so start first with whatever it costs you to pay taxes. I'm a US citizen living in Berlin, haven't filed UK taxes, but uktaxcalculators.co.uk says that on 63,000 a year with 3 deductions your net earnings will actually be 43,500. That's 3,625/month. Then what does it cost you each month for rent/utilities/etc. to put a house over your family's head? The rule of thumb they taught in my home-economics class was 35-40%, but that's not for Europe... you'll know what it costs. Let's say its 1,450 a month (40%) for rent and utilities and maybe insurance. That leaves 2,175. The next necessity after housing is food. My current food budget is about 5-6% of my after-tax salary. But that may not compare... the cost to feed a family of 3 is a fairly fixed number, and our salaries aren't the same. As I said, I am a US expat living in Berlin, so I looked at this cost of living calculator, and it looks like groceries are about 7-10% higher there around Cardiff than here in Germany. Still, I spend about 120 € per week on food. That has a fair margin in it for splurging on ice cream and a couple brewskies. It feeds me (I'm almost 2m and about 100 kilos) and my family of four. Let's say you spend 100£ a week on groceries. For budgeting, that's 433£ a month. (52 weeks / 12 months == 4.333 weeks/month) But let's call it 500£. That leaves 1,675. From here, you'll have to figure out the details of where your own money is going--that's why I said you should really start tracking your expenses somehow... even just for a short time. But for the purposes of completing the answers to your questions, the next step is to look at saving before you try spending anything else. A nice target is to aim for 10% of your after-tax pay going into a savings account... this is apart from any other investments. Let's say you do that, you'll be putting away 363£ per month. That leaves 1,300£. As far as other expenses... you need some money for transport. You haven't mentioned car(s) but let's say you're spending another 500£ there. That would be about enough to cover one with the petrol you need to get around town. That leaves 800£ As far as a clothing budget and entertainment, I usually match my grocery budget with what I call \"\"mad money\"\". That's basically money that goes towards other stuff that I would love to categorize, but that my wife gets annoyed with my efforts to drill into on a regular basis. That's another 500£, which leaves 300£. You mentioned debts... assuming that's a credit card at around 20% interest, you probably pay 133£ a month just in interest... (20% = 0.20 / 12 = 0.01667 x 8,000 = 133) plus some nominal payment towards principal. So let's call it 175£. That leaves you with 125£ of wiggle room, assuming I have even caught all of your expenses. And depending on how they're timed, you are probably feeling a serious squeeze in between paychecks. I recognize that you're asking specific questions, but I think that just based on the questions you need a bit more careful backing into the budget. And you REALLY need to track what you're spending for the time being, until you can say... right, we usually spend about this much on X... how can we cut it out? From there the basics of getting your financial house in order are splattered across the interwebs. Make a budget... stick to it... pay down debts... save. Develop goals and mini incentives/rewards as a way to make sure your change your psyche about following a budget.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b65a7bc2e4502b2f706e84c5fc12f04",
"text": "\"As THEAO suggested, tracking spending is a great start. But how about this - Figure out the payment needed to get to zero debt in a reasonable time, 24 months, perhaps. If that's more than 15% of your income, maybe stretch a tiny bit to 30 months. If it's much less, send 15% to debt until it's paid, then flip the money to savings. From what's left, first budget the \"\"needs,\"\" rent, utilities, etc. Whatever you spend on food, try to cut back 10%. There is no budget for entertainment or clothes. The whole point is one must either live beneath their means, or increase their income. You've seen what can happen when the debt snowballs. In reality, with no debt to service and the savings growing, you'll find a way to prioritize spending. Some months you'll have to choose, dinner out, or a show. I agree with Keith's food bill, $300-$400/mo for 3 of us. Months with a holiday and large guest list throws that off, of course.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6249769e1863bcae3d9c17157119480f",
"text": "\"Zero? Ten grand? Somewhere in the middle? It depends. Your stated salary, in U.S. dollars, would be high five-figures (~$88k). You certainly should not be starving, but with decent contributions toward savings and retirement, money can indeed be tight month-to-month at that salary level, especially since even in Cardiff you're probably paying more per square foot for your home than in most U.S. markets (EDIT: actually, 3-bedroom apartments in Cardiff, according to Numbeo, range from £750-850, which is US$1200-$1300, and for that many bedrooms you'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of deal in a good infield neighborhood of the DFW Metro, and good luck getting anywhere close to downtown New York, LA, Miami, Chicago etc for that price. What job do you do, and how are you expected to dress for it? Depending on where you shop and what you buy, a quality dress shirt and dress slacks will cost between US$50-$75 each (assuming real costs are similar for the same brands between US and UK, that's £30-£50 per shirt and pair of pants for quality brands). I maintain about a weeks' wardrobe at this level of dress (my job allows me to wear much cheaper polos and khakis most days and I have about 2 weeks' wardrobe of those) and I typically have to replace due to wear or staining, on average, 2 of these outfits a year (I'm hard on clothes and my waistline is expanding). Adding in 3 \"\"business casual\"\" outfits each year, plus casual outfits, shoes, socks, unmentionables and miscellany, call it maybe $600(£400)/year in wardrobe. That doesn't generally get metered out as a monthly allowance (the monthly amount would barely buy a single dress shirt or pair of slacks), but if you're socking away a savings account and buying new clothes to replace old as you can afford them it's a good average. I generally splurge in months when the utilities companies give me a break and when I get \"\"extra\"\" paychecks (26/year means two months have 3 checks, effectively giving me a \"\"free\"\" check that neither pays the mortgage nor the other major bills). Now, that's just to maintain my own wardrobe at a level of dress that won't get me fired. My wife currently stays home, but when she worked she outspent me, and her work clothes were basic black. To outright replace all the clothes I wear regularly with brand-new stuff off the rack would easily cost a grand, and that's for the average U.S. software dev who doesn't go out and meet other business types on a daily basis. If I needed to show up for work in a suit and tie daily, I'd need a two-week rotation of them, plus dress shirts, and even at the low end of about $350 (£225) per suit, $400 (£275) with dress shirt and tie, for something you won't be embarrassed to wear, we're talking $4000 (£2600) to replace and $800 (£520) per year to update 2 a year, not counting what I wear underneath or on the weekends. And if I wore suits I'd probably have to update the styles more often than that, so just go ahead and double it and I turn over my wardrobe once every 5 years. None of this includes laundering costs, which increase sharply when you're taking suits to the cleaners weekly versus just throwing a bunch of cotton-poly in the washing machine. What hobbies or other entertainment interests do you and your wife have? A movie ticket in the U.S. varies between $7-$15 depending on the size of the screen and 2D vs 3D screenings. My wife and I currently average less than one theater visit a month, but if you took in a flick each weekend with your wife, with a decent $50 dinner out, that's between $260-$420 (£165-270) monthly in entertainment expenses. Not counting babysitting for the little one (the going rate in the US is between $10 and $20 an hour for at-home child-sitting depending on who you hire and for how long, how often). Worst-case, without babysitting that's less than 5% of your gross income, but possibly more than 10% of your take-home depending on UK effective income tax rates (your marginal rate is 40% according to the HMRC, unless you find a way to deduct about £30k of your income). That's just the traditional American date night, which is just one possible interest. Playing organized sports is more or less expensive depending on the sport. Soccer (sorry, football) just needs a well-kept field, two goals and and a ball. Golf, while not really needing much more when you say it that way, can cost thousands of dollars or pounds a month to play with the best equipment at the best courses. Hockey requires head-to-toe padding/armor, skates, sticks, and ice time. American football typically isn't an amateur sport for adults and has virtually no audience in Europe, but in the right places in the U.S., beginning in just a couple years you'd be kitting your son out head-to-toe not dissimilar to hockey (minus sticks) and at a similar cost, and would keep that up at least halfway through high school. I've played them all at varying amateur levels, and with the possible exception of soccer they all get expensive when you really get interested in them. How much do you eat, and of what?. My family of three's monthly grocery budget is about $300-$400 (£190-£260) depending on what we buy and how we buy it. Americans have big refrigerators (often more than one; there's three in my house of varying sizes), we buy in bulk as needed every week to two weeks, we refrigerate or freeze a lot of what we buy, and we eat and drink a lot of high-fructose corn-syrup-based crap that's excise-taxed into non-existence in most other countries. I don't have real-world experience living and grocery-shopping in Europe, but I do know that most shopping is done more often, in smaller quantities, and for more real food. You might expect to spend £325 ($500) or more monthly, in fits and starts every few days, but as I said you'd probably know better than me what you're buying and what it's costing. To educate myself, I went to mysupermarket.co.uk, which has what I assume are typical UK food prices (mostly from Tesco), and it's a real eye-opener. In the U.S., alcohol is much more expensive for equal volume than almost any other drink except designer coffee and energy drinks, and we refrigerate the heck out of everything anyway, so a low-budget food approach in the U.S. generally means nixing beer and wine in favor of milk, fruit juices, sodas and Kool-Aid (or just plain ol' tap water). A quick search on MySupermarkets shows that wine prices average a little cheaper, accounting for the exchange rate, as in the States (that varies widely even in the U.S., as local and state taxes for beer, wine and spirits all differ). Beer is similarly slightly cheaper across the board, especially for brands local to the British Isles (and even the Coors Lite crap we're apparently shipping over to you is more expensive here than there), but in contrast, milk by the gallon (4L) seems to be virtually unheard of in the UK, and your half-gallon/2-liter jugs are just a few pence cheaper than our going rate for a gallon (unless you buy \"\"organic\"\" in the US, which carries about a 100% markup). Juices are also about double the price depending on what you're buying (a quart of \"\"Innocent\"\" OJ, roughly equivalent in presentation to the U.S. brand \"\"Simply Orange\"\", is £3 while Simply Orange is about the same price in USD for 2 quarts), and U.S.-brand \"\"fizzy drinks\"\" are similarly at a premium (£1.98 - over $3 - for a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola). With the general preference for room-temperature alcohol in Europe giving a big advantage to the longer unrefrigerated shelf lives of beer and wine, I'm going to guess you guys drink more alcohol and water with dinner than Americans. Beef is cheaper in the U.S., depending on where you are and what you're buying; prices for store-brand ground beef (you guys call it \"\"minced\"\") of the grade we'd use for hamburgers and sauces is about £6 per kilo in the UK, which works out to about $4.20/lb, when we're paying closer to $3/lb in most cities. I actually can't remember the last time I bought fresh chicken on the bone, but the average price I'm seeing in the UK is £10/kg ($7/lb) which sounds pretty steep. Anyway, it sounds like shopping for American tastes in the UK would cost, on average, between 25-30% more than here in the US, so applying that to my own family's food budget, you could easily justify spending £335 a month on food.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "070d2ad7fe0e1c826446a42018bbc2ae",
"text": "Well, I'm from the Netherlands, which is also kind of a 'nanny' state, usually supermarket goods are fairly cheap (bottle of 1,5L Coca Cola is $1,42, a 24-crate of beer is around $11). But gasoline ($2/L), diesel ($1.60/L) and tobacco ($6-8.50) are quite expensive. Basically we have an extra tax on certain (unhealthy and environmentally harmful) goods so you get a basic consumer tax of 19% (soon to be 21%) + 15-250%. For example a pack of cigarettes of $6.50 is $1.71 without taxes right now. But for some reason alcohol isn't taxed as heavily, where tobacco gets upwards of 250% extra tax alcohol only gets 5-15.5% extra taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd0dd85bad94d6fbb950e2764c032786",
"text": "\"I posted a comment in another answer and it seems to be approved by others, so I have converted this into an answer. If you're talking about young adults who just graduated college and worked through it. I would recommend you tell them to keep the same budget as what they were living on before they got a full-time job. This way, as far as their spending habits go, nothing changes since they only have a $500 budget (random figure) and everything else goes into savings and investments. If as a student you made $500/month and you suddenly get $2000/month, that's a lot of money you get to blow on drinks. Now, if you put $500 in savings (until 6-12 month of living expenses), $500 in investments for the long run and $500 in vacation funds or \"\"big expenses\"\" funds (Ideally with a cap and dump the extra in investments). That's $18,000/yr you are saving. At this stage in your life, you have not gotten used to spending that extra $18,000/yr. Don't touch the side money except for the vacation fund when you want to treat yourself. Your friends will call you cheap, but that's not your problem. Take that head start and build that down payment on your dream house. The way I set it up, is (in this case) I have automatics every day after my paychecks come in for the set amounts. I never see it, but I need to make sure I have the money in there. Note: Numbers are there for the sake of simplicity. Adjust accordingly. PS: This is anecdotal evidence that has worked for me. Parents taught me this philosophy and it has worked wonders for me. This is the extent of my financial wisdom.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca5e112fd2e803aee9e1db5b13fbdd6",
"text": "Set aside the amount of grocery money you want to spend in a week in cash. Then buy groceries only from this money. The first week make it a generous amount so you don't get rediculous and give up. And stick to it when you are out of money (make sure you have some canned goods or something around if you run out of money a day short). And do not shop when you are hungry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d0c00de68f83aef59cf18c2b6020505",
"text": "This is a big and complex topic, but it's one I think people get wrong a lot. There's a lot of ways to treat a child's pocket money: Tell a kid that they're getting $10/week allowance. Help them keep it safe, but don't give them access to it: Put it in a drawer in your office, or a piggie bank on a high shelf. Encourage them to save up for a big purchase. Help them decide what to spend it on. When they find something they want, talk it over with them to make sure it's right for them. This seems like a good approach, because it encourages thrift, long term thinking, savings, and other important elements of real life. But it's a TERRIBLE idea. All it does is make the child think of it as if it wasn't really their money. The child gets no benefits from this, and will certainly not learn anything about savings. Give the kid $10/week. Full stop. This seems like a bad idea, because the kid is just going to waste it. Which they will. :) That's the point! There's NO way to learn except by experience. Try and shift control of discretionary spending to the child as and when appropriate. Give them some money for clothes, or a present for their birthday, and let them spend it. If they're going to be spending all day at some event, give them money for lunch. And if they misspend it - tough! No kid is going to starve in one day because the spend their lunch money at a video arcade, but they will learn a valuable lesson. :) You have to be careful here of two mistakes. First, only do this for truly discretionary spending. If your kid needs clothes for school, then you better make sure they actually buy it. Second, make sure that you don't end up filling in the gaps. What you're teaching here is opportunity costs, and that won't work if your child gets to have his cake and eat it too. (Or go to the movies and STILL get that new Xbox game.) Have them get a job. And, it should go without saying, give them control of the money. It's incredibly tempting to force them to save, be responsible, etc. But all this does is force them to look responsible...for as long as their under your thumb. Nothing will impart the lessons about why being responsible is important like being irresponsible. And it's sure as hell better to learn that lesson with some paper route money when your 14 than with your rent money when your 24...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7601e04f3bc71c067101f24687e82a63",
"text": "Track your expenses. Find out where your money is going, and target areas where you can reduce expenses. Some examples: I was spending a lot on food, buying too much packaged food, and eating out too much. So I started cooking from scratch more and eating out less. Now, even though I buy expensive organic produce, imported cheese, and grass-fed beef, I'm spending half of what I used to spend on food. It could be better. I could cut back on meat and eat out even less. I'm working on it. I was buying a ton of books and random impulsive crap off of Amazon. So I no longer let myself buy things right away. I put stuff on my wish list if I want it, and every couple of months I go on there and buy myself a couple of things off my wishlist. I usually end up realizing that some of the stuff on there isn't something I want that badly after all, so I just delete it from my wishlist. I replaced my 11-year-old Jeep SUV with an 11-year-old Saturn sedan that gets twice the gas mileage. That saves me almost $200/month in gasoline costs alone. I had cable internet through Comcast, even though I don't have a TV. So I went from a $70/month cable bill to a $35/month DSL bill, which cut my internet costs in half. I have an iPhone and my bill for that is $85/month. That's insane, with how little I talk on the phone and send text messages. Once it goes out of contract, I plan to replace it with a cheap phone, possibly a pre-paid. That should cut my phone expenses in half, or even less. I'll keep my iPhone, and just use it when wifi is available (which is almost everywhere these days).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41b672feae4a9d69a896ca23a684cf0c",
"text": "Your question is rather direct, but I think there is some underlying issues that are worth addressing. One How to save and purchase ~$500 worth items This one is the easy one, since we confront it often enough. Never, ever, ever buy anything on credit. The only exception might be your first house, but that's it. Simply redirect the money you would spend in non necessities ('Pleasure and entertainment') to your big purchase fund (the PS4, in this case). When you get the target amount, simply purchase it. When you get your salary use it to pay for the monthly actual necessities (rent, groceries, etc) and go through the list. The money flow should be like this: Two How to evaluate if a purchase is appropriate It seems that you may be reluctant to spend a rather chunky amount of money on a single item. Let me try to assuage you. 'Expensive' is not defined by price alone, but by utility. To compare the price of items you should take into account their utility. Let's compare your prized PS4 to a soda can. Is a soda can expensive? It quenches your thirst and fills you with sugar. Tap water will take your thirst away, without damaging your health, and for a fraction of the price. So, yes, soda is ridiculously expensive, whenever water is available. Is a game console expensive? Sure. But it all boils down to how much do you end up using it. If you are sure you will end up playing for years to come, then it's probably good value for your money. An example of wrongly spent money on entertainment: My friends and I went to the cinema to see a movie without checking the reviews beforehand. It was so awful that it hurt, even with the discount price we got. Ultimately, we all ended up remembering that time and laughing about how wrong it went. So it was somehow, well spent, since I got a nice memory from that evening. A purchase is appropriate if you get your money's worth of utility/pleasure. Three Console and computer gaming, and commendation of the latter There are few arguments for buying a console instead of upgrading your current computer (if needed) except for playing console exclusives. It seems unlikely that a handful of exclusive games can justify purchasing a non upgradeable platform unless you can actually get many hours from said games. Previous arguments to prefer consoles instead of computers are that they work out of the box, capability to easily connect to the tv, controller support... have been superseded by now. Besides, pc games can usually be acquired for a lower price through frequent sales. More about personal finance and investment",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88f95f3f33e6228d828d562ece97c1ed",
"text": "\"Just my 2 cents, I read on the book, The WSJ Financial Guidebook for New Parents, that \"\"the average family spends between $11k and $16k raising their child during his first year\"\". So it might be better for you to make a budget including that cost, then decide how much money you feel safe to invest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b0134576ad94f597841f155d16001d1",
"text": "Aside from what everyone else has said about your money (saving, investing, etc.), I'd like to comment on what else you could spend it on: Spend it all on small/stupid things that, while stupid, would make me happier. For example take taxis more often, eat often in nice restaurants, buy designer clothes, etc. I'll be young only one time. You could also put the money towards something more... productive? Like a home project. Convert a room in your living space into an office or a theater-like room. Install hardwood floors yourself. Renovate a bathroom. Plant a garden of things you would enjoy eating later. Something that you would enjoy having or doing and can look back at and be proud of putting your money towards something that you accomplished.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d05671fdb3c36883abcde29fd83fabc",
"text": "I make it a habit at the end of every day to think about how much money I spent in total that day, being mindful of what was essential and wasn't. I know that I might have spent $20 on a haircut (essential), $40 on groceries (essential) and $30 on eating out (not essential). Then I realize that I could have just spent $60 instead of $90. This habit, combined with the general attitude that it's better to have not spent some mone than to have spent some money, has been pretty effective for me to bring down my monthly spending. I guess this requires more motivation than the other more-involved techniques given here. You have to really want to reduce your spending. I found motivation easy to come by because I was spending a lot and I'm still looking for a job, so I have no sources of income. But it's worked really well so far.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "986483aca79fc08b760992585b15ae69",
"text": "Only select items. First - I agree, beware the Goldfish Factor - any of those items may very well lead to greater consumption, which will impact your waistline worse than your bottom line. And, in this category, chips, and snacks in general, you'll typically get twice the size bag for the same price as supermarket. For a large family, this might work ok. If one is interested in saving on grocery items, the very first step is to get familiar with the unit cost (often cents per ounce) of most items you buy. Warehouse store or not, this knowledge will make you a better buyer. In general, the papergoods/toiletries are cheaper than at the store but not as cheap as the big sale/coupon cost at the supermarket or pharmacy (CVS/RiteAid). So if you pay attention you may always be stocked up from other sources. All that said, there are many items that easily cover our membership cost (for Costco). The meat, beef tenderloin, $8.99, I can pay up to $18 at the supermarket or butcher. Big shrimp (12 to the lb), $9.50/lb, easily $15 at fish dept. Funny, I buy the carrots JCarter mentioned. They are less than half supermarket price per lb, so I am ahead if we throw out the last 1/4 of the bag. More often than not, it's used up 100%. Truth is, everyone will have a different experience at these stores. Costco will refund membership up to the very end, so why not try it, and see if the visit is worth it? Last year, I read and wrote a review of a book titled The Paradox of Choice. The book's premise was the diminishing return that come with too many things to choose from. In my review, I observed how a benefit of Costco is the lack of choice, there's one or two brands for most items, not dozens. If you give this a bit of thought, it's actually a benefit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1028503291e1d7182842563f9ad292d8",
"text": "\"Keep a notebook. (or spreadsheet, etc. whatever works) Start to track what things cost as few can really commit this all to memory. You'll start to find the regular sale prices and the timing of them at your supermarkets. I can't even tell you the regular price of chicken breasts, I just know the sale is $1.79-1.99/lb, and I buy enough to freeze to never pay full price. The non-perishables are easy as you don't have to worry about spoilage. Soap you catch on sale+coupon for less than half price is worth buying to the limit, and putting in a closet. Ex Dove soap (as the husband, I'm not about to make an issue of a brand preference. This product is good for the mrs skin in winter) - reg price $1.49. CVS had a whacky deal that offered a rebate on Dove purchase of $20, and in the end, I paid $10 for 40 bars of soap. 2 yrs worth, but 1/6 the price. This type of strategy can raise your spending in the first month or two, but then you find you have the high runners \"\"in stock\"\" and as you use products from the pantry or freezer, your spending drops quite a bit. If this concept seems overwhelming, start with the top X items you buy. As stated, the one a year purchases save you far less than the things you buy weekly/monthly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c44b08854a031354dbe1f6080139836",
"text": "A Budget is different for every person. There are families making $40K/yr who will budget to spend it all. But a family making $100K of course will have a different set of spending limits for most items. My own approach is to start by tracking every cent. Keep a notebook for a time, 3 months minimum. Note, for homeowners, a full year is what it takes to capture the seasonal expenses. This approach with help you see where the money is going, and adjust accordingly. The typical goal is to spend less than you make, saving X% for retirement, etc. The most important aspect is to analyze how much money is getting spent on wasteful items. The $5 coffee, the $10 lunch, the $5-$7 magazines, etc. One can decide the $5 coffee is a social event done with a friend, and that's fine, so long as it's a mindful decision. I've watched the person in front of me at the supermarket put 4 magazines down on the counter. If she has $20 to burn, that's her choice. See Where can I find an example of a really basic family budget? for other responses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12ee441fe497d1b302896b6155d13d07",
"text": "I have friends that have to buy very large shirts. A plain red pocketed shirt in their size costs at least $20 at a physical store if they even carry their size. You just can't beat the options and price an online retailer can offer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8549e17945a4d8a46afa30c91f421a0e",
"text": "I don't know of any rule of thumb for travel. In general, what you spend on entertainment should be what you have left after paying for the more mundane things in life -- housing, food, electricity, and so on -- and setting aside reasonable amounts for retirement and emergencies. Entertainment varies widely as a percentage of one's income. Someone making minimum wage and trying to support a sick wife and three kids probably has pretty much zero left over for entertainment. Someone who makes a million a year and has no debts might spend 50% or more of his income on entertainment. Yes, I've heard rules of thumb for charity, housing, and retirement that are probably at least useful ballparks. But for entertainment? No, I think that's just what's left over.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40ad5d56596f5b49456e973e731c41ad",
"text": "You should see what your average weekly purchases are and set that aside in your checking/current account, then you should typically not be in danger of overdrawing. Doing this exercise will also help you get a better understaning of your spending and spending habits. For example if on average you spend $500 USD a week then put say $575 USD in your current account and you should not be in danger of over drawing and then having to go into your online account and make the transfer. I always tell people to setup a budget and to stick to it as best as they can, earmark money for dining out, entertainment, anything they can think of that they would spend money on, this way they can keep track of where it goes and how often and quick it goes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e1027f3ed0fb524e14c5066e6e60895d
|
How will the New credit reporting rules affect people who are already struggling financially?
|
[
{
"docid": "ec061af2503da47982f1223823b2236d",
"text": "From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7404c2113917ce9a79bc2c3c0fa77e01",
"text": "I notice that a lot happened four months ago. You were denied credit twice. Your income went up from $20k to $60k. I'm wondering if you were denied credit based on your $20k income. Since you couldn't provide proof of your income I wonder if they used $0 for your income. Debt to income ratio is one significant factor included in the credit score calculation. You may not have a lot of debt, but if you don't have any income even a few hundred dollars on a credit card would throw your debt to income ratio into a panic. I'm assuming that your change from $20k to $60k income involved a change of jobs. Perhaps now you can provide proof of income. You would certainly need to do that before being approved for a mortgage. Well that's my two cents about what may (or may not) have gone wrong last time. As for what to do next I would agree that the most helpful thing you could do is check your credit score and fix any errors that might negatively impact your credit score. (There might also be non-errors that need addressed such as open credit accounts that you thought you had closed.) When building credit history, time is on your side. If you just go on living your life and paying your bills promptly, your credit will slowly climb to an acceptable level. Unfortunately in the time frame you mentioned (~1 year) there isn't really enough time to build it significantly. You bring up a valid point about credit applications reducing your credit score. Of course, that effect is somewhat minimal and temporary (2 yrs according to the thread linked to above). But again 1 year is not enough to recover. If you're considering applying for additional credit as a means to improve your credit score it may be too late to reap the benefits before your mortgage application. Of course if you could pay off any debts, that would help your debt to income ratio. But it would also reduce any house down payment you could save up and thereby increase the amount of your mortgage. Better just save those pennies (or preferably Washingtons and Benjamins) to put toward a down payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "c58315e4f2d1114fe198979ab5842f02",
"text": "In the United States, when applying for credit cards, proof of income is on an honor system. You can make $15k a year and write on your application that you make $150k a year. They don't check that value other than to have their computer systems figure out risk and you get a yes or no. It was traditionally easy to attain credit, but that got tightened in 2008/2009 with the housing crisis. This is starting to change again and credit is flowing much more easily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87fc1ee3130e6d1f7b2378deb7fb8c8c",
"text": "Credit scoring has changed recently and the answer to this question will have slightly changed. While most points made here are true: But now (as of July 2017) it is possible having a large available credit balance can negatively effect your credit score directly: ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f226011def59447bb6d6e392fde76909",
"text": "If your accounts have an overdraft facility, then every open account is classed as available credit which has a negative effect on your credit score. It's not normally a major concern but it is a factor. (nb. this definitely applies to the UK, maybe not where you are)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "fcda1fff6fd82196fcf314538405704b",
"text": "Bankrupting them isn't going to help anyone. They should be kept alive and forced to provide everyone with free lifetime credit monitoring. I actually just enrolled in their trustedid this morning for my one year trial and it SHOULD be a lifetime service I get for free. Frozen credit files should become the norm and you should be notified via text if someone wants to access your file at which point you can text back YES or NO (much like current fraud alerts). There is actually a lot that can and should be done. I'm worried that nothing is actually going to change because the government is moving very slowly here and people quickly forget about this stuff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88751c15cd8bc219be470d90a5777efb",
"text": "\"I agree it seems insulting to pay the credit reporting agencies, but I have no choice at this point. I'd rather pay the small fee per each of them, to freeze accounts, then have thousands stolen. My husband has excellent credit and also we have a rather substantial savings account, that his info could give \"\"would be\"\" identity thieves access too. This whole situation is messed up, and unacceptable! For one, no one EVER gave these credit reporting agencies access to their info, it's just a \"\"give in\"\" being born here. And for two, no one asked for their information to be kept in insecure databases. Higher standards need to be implemented. My poor 72 year old father is outraged when I tell him his info is online. He says, \"\"I don't use the Internet!!! How can it be there?!?!\"\" (Poor old soul lol) I just said, \"\"well dad, it is, whether you use it, or like it or not. It's there\"\" I just need to make sure we are taking the correct steps to protect ourselves. Honestly, I am not finance savvy. This is why I'm asking here in this sub. Thank you for responding, and thanks to anyone else who may offer any advice. I'm not terrified, but I'm definitely miffed...\"",
"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": "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": "6de2264a0a9d82015be6c5d897c27ebd",
"text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b09177af85ced2610290bee3b451f080",
"text": "I've seen an increasing number of writeups about this. Some peers think people just use more credit cards nowadays (instead of cash for instance), and that it's normal. I'm not buying it. I think this is a serious problem and I'm wondering how we're going to see this play into the US economy moving forward. Also, if anyone knows how the EU is doing with credit card debt, I'd be grateful for any data points.",
"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": "148296a45eac65c7875597ceac51a2c4",
"text": "I just wanted to let people know of a strange little way bankruptcy works in society when dealing with individuals and when dealing with businesses. If I as a person declare bankruptcy, my credit score goes downhill. I find loans have higher interest rates, some people won't lend the amounts I want, and I have to pay more up front. If as a business I declare bankruptcy, my individual credit score (not business) does not suffer AT ALL. My business likely will have a harder time getting loans, that is unless someone buys me out or I collapse the business and start a new business, maybe even the exact same business with the same clients. I personally, am not held accountable for anything (unless I was a sole proprietor of course and didn't incorporate). That to me, is the major problem. Corporations mean never having to say you're sorry. No matter how high up you are, you are never individually accountable for your actions. In fact, I highly suggest anyone considering bankruptcy simply form a corporation, dump their debt assets into it, and then have the corporation declare bankruptcy. Viola, instant clean credit score and all your debts are paid. Just watch out for [vicarious liability :p](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6c196c82d3a3b4643e3d59330aa070e",
"text": "\"I don't know that this can actually be answered objectively. Maybe it can with some serious research. (Read: data on what the issuers have been doing since the law went into affect.) Personally, I think the weak economy and general problems with easy credit are a bigger issue than the new rules. Supposedly, there is evidence that card issuers are trying to make up for the lost income due to the new regulations with higher fees. I believe that your credit rating and history with the issuer is a larger factor now. In other words, they may be less likely to lower your rate just to keep you as a customer or to attract new customers. According to The Motley Fool, issuers dropped their riskiest customers as a result of the new regulations. Some say that new laws simply motivated the issuers to find new ways to \"\"gouge\"\" their customers. Here are two NYTimes blog posts about the act: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/what-the-credit-card-act-means-for-you/ http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/the-effects-of-the-credit-card-act/ As JohnFx states, it does not hurt to ask.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
12478fcd249990234212520d35429a95
|
How do I know when I am financially stable/ready to move out on my own?
|
[
{
"docid": "8b2968b4264653859bd4443977451b41",
"text": "One big deciding factor will be what standard of living you want to maintain once you move out. Your parents have had years to get raises, accumulate savings, and establish the standard of living you are used to. Regardless of how much you save up now, you'll still have to be living at or below your means once you move out, that means that all the expenses you currently have covered by your parents have to come out of something you are currently spending elsewhere. If they can come out of whatever extra money you have now, then great. If not, you'll have to re-align your budget to align with your income. In my experience, seeing my friends and I move out, this was the biggest issue. Those who settled into a new standard of living until their wages went up did fine (even the few who moved out at 18 with no savings). Those who couldn't drop the extra expenses, and wanted to continue living at their parent's standard of living either never left home, ended up moving back, or ended up massively in debt. We're only just hitting 30 now, so it didn't take long for things to settle out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d003b07bc1b303441f2b89575c367b78",
"text": "\"It all depends on what your financial goals are when you are ready. You sound like you could be ready today if you wanted to be. The steps that I would take are. Create a monthly draft budget. This doesn't have to be something hard and fast, just a gague of what your living expenses would be compared to your after-tax salary. Make sure there would be room for \"\"fun\"\" money. a. Consider adding a new car fund line item to this budget, and deducting that amount from your paycheck starting now so that you can save for the car. Based on the most realistic estimate that you can make, you'll get a good idea if you want to spend the money it takes to move out alone now or later. You'll also see the price for various levels of rentals in your area (renting a single family home, townhouse, condo, apartment, living in a rented room or basement, sharing a place with friends, etc) and know some of the costs of setting up for yourself. Since you're looking at the real estate market, you may want to do a cost comparison of renting versus buying. I've found the New York Times interactive graphic on this is excellent. If you are looking to buy, make sure to research the hidden costs of buying thoroughly before taking this step. To answer your last question, if you have the cash you should consider upping your 401K investment (or using Roth or regular IRA). Make sure you are investing enough to get your full employer match, if your employer offers one, and then get as close as you can to government maximum contribution limits. Compound interest is a big deal when you are 23.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ce48ba346467a08b46b829339b1cd0",
"text": "I'll just say this. You are in much better shape financially than I was when I moved out on my own and started supporting myself, and I did fine. The 6 month emergency fund is nice, but I'd gamble that most people that have been out on their own for a long time can't match that. The main thing is just to keep a budget that is commensurate with your income and adjust it if you see that emergency fund start to dwindle. Look at it this way, assuming you are wrong and you completely weren't ready for independent living, you could always go back. Nothing ventured nothing gained.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4250441bda04199fb9e440796e680535",
"text": "One major concern with moving out on your own is can you afford rent each month, be it an apartment or a house payment. You'll hear people say that anywhere from 25% to 40% of your monthly after-tax income should go to housing. 40% seems very high to me and quite risky. I'd go for closer to 30% of your monthly after-tax income and not any higher, but that's just my opinion. I had a friend that moved out of his parents house about the same time that I did. He bought himself a house, and then he immediately started looking for roommates to help pay for his house. It really was a good idea, and I wish that I'd been in a position to do the same, because I'm sure that it saved him a lot of money for the first couple of years. Apart from that, my only advise would be to get a house if you can afford it. 1) Interest rates are very low right now, and 2) if you're paying rent to someone (for an apartment or whatever) then you're just throwing your hard-earned money away. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4577731b949a0dece0a8ed46a0bc96d8",
"text": "\"I recently moved out from my parents place, after having built up sufficient funds, and gone through these questions myself. I live near Louisville, KY which has a significant effect on my income, cost of living, and cost of housing. Factor that into your decisions. To answer your questions in order: When do I know that I'm financially stable to move out? When you have enough money set aside for all projected expenses for 3-6 months and an emergency fund of 4-10K, depending on how large a safety net you want or need. Note that part of the reason for the emergency fund is as a buffer for the things you won't realize you need until you move out, such as pots or chairs. It also covers things being more expensive than anticipated. Should I wait until both my emergency fund is at least 6 months of pay and my loans in my parents' names is paid off (to free up money)? 6 months of pay is not a good measuring stick. Use months of expenses instead. In general, student loans are a small enough cost per month that you just need to factor them into your costs. When should I factor in the newer car investment? How much should I have set aside for the car? Do the car while you are living at home. This allows you to put more than the minimum payment down each month, and you can get ahead. That looks good on your credit, and allows refinancing later for a lower minimum payment when you move out. Finally, it gives you a \"\"sense\"\" of the monthly cost while you still have leeway to adjust things. Depending on new/used status of the car, set aside around 3-5K for a down payment. That gives you a decent rate, without too much haggling trouble. Should I get an apartment for a couple years before looking for my own house? Not unless you want the flexibility of an apartment. In general, living at home is cheaper. If you intend to eventually buy property in the same area, an apartment is throwing money away. If you want to move every few years, an apartment can, depending on the lease, give you that. How much should I set aside for either investment (apartment vs house)? 10-20K for a down payment, if you live around Louisville, KY. Be very choosy about the price of your house and this gives you the best of everything. The biggest mistake you can make is trying to get into a place too \"\"early\"\". Banks pay attention to the down payment for a good reason. It indicates commitment, care, and an ability to go the distance. In general, a mortgage is 30 years. You won't pay it off for a long time, so plan for that. Is there anything else I should be doing/taking advantage of with my money during this \"\"living at home\"\" period before I finally leave the nest? If there is something you want, now's the time to get it. You can make snap purchases on furniture/motorcycles/games and not hurt yourself. Take vacations, since there is room in the budget. If you've thought about moving to a different state for work, travel there for a weekend/week and see if you even like the place. Look for deals on things you'll need when you move out. Utensils, towels, brooms, furniture, and so forth can be bought cheaply, and you can get quality, but it takes time to find these deals. Pick up activities with monthly expenses. Boxing, dancing, gym memberships, hackerspaces and so forth become much more difficult to fit into the budget later. They also give you a better credit rating for a recurring expense, and allow you to get a \"\"feel\"\" for how things like a monthly utility bill will work. Finally, get involved in various investments. A 401k is only the start, so look at penny stocks, indexed funds, ETFs or other things to diversify with. Check out local businesses, or start something on the side. Experiment, and have fun.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a66da7a6d68a0dceacd379e7774fb33",
"text": "It's hard to financially justify buying a house just for one person to live in. You end up being 'over-housed' (and paying for it). Would you rent a whole house for yourself? A condo might be an option - but TO ME the maintenance fees are hard to take (and they are notorious for increasing dramatically as the building ages). You could consider buying a house that includes 1 or 2 rental units, or sharing with a friend. You do run the risk of having bad tenants though, and you have additional maintance to deal with. Having a rental unit in my modest house has worked out very well for me (living alone), and I have been VERY fortunate with tenants.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a54e3e9a80b805b108639d42f2aa27a3",
"text": "If you are living at home as an adult, then you should be paying your fair share and contributing to the household expenses. You said your parents have loans to pay for that was part of your expenses to go to college. As an adult, you should be paying your parents back for the loans they took out on your behalf. You are a responsible person, it sounds like. Therefore, you need to finish restoring your parent's financial position first before moving out or transfer the loans that are actually yours back to you. Your college education and financial duties are your responsibility. Basically, if you are an adult you should move into your own place in a responsible way or stay at home while contributing to your parent's financial household status in a mutually beneficial way of shared responsibility. Remember, healthy adults take care of their lives and share in paying for the expenses required to live.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc7d0410c8312a85853b242a022467e7",
"text": "I’m going to suggest something your parents may be reluctant to say: “Grow up and get out.” A man living in a van down by the river, making minimum wage, with $0 in savings has achieved something you have still failed to achieve: adulthood. This, I believe, is more important than a man’s income or net worth. So please join us adults Bryan. I think you’ll enjoy it. Yes, your savings may take a hit but you will gain the respect that comes with being an adult. I think it is worth it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e567bd827487aeef3d7dd0e4d4c34640",
"text": "I know there are plenty of people who have to deal with the stress and know it isn't pleasant...but it's hard to see how much worse it is as far as stress goes because I have to pay $1950 in rent each month and don't get the option to default and if I do, I don't get to wait for 8 months while the banks get their paperwork in order to evict me. I want to believe that in the end I will come out ahead but either I've been incredibly smart with my life decisions or incredibly naive...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a405c923ef9d9630e97eaa6925869c1a",
"text": "My experience with owning a home is that its like putting down roots and can be like an anchor holding you to an area. Before considering whether you can financially own a home consider some of the other implications. Once you own it you are stuck for awhile and cannot quickly move away like you can with renting. So if a better job opportunity comes up or your employer moves you to another office across town that doubles your commute time, you'll be regretting the home purchase as it will be a barrier to moving to a more convenient location. I, along with my fiancée and two children, are being forced to move out of my parents home ASAP. Do not rush buying a home. Take your time and find what you want. I made the mistake once of buying a home thinking I could take on some DIY remodeling to correct some features I wasn't fond of. Life intervenes and finding extra time for DIY house updates doesn't come easy, especially with children. Speaking of children, consider the school district when buying a home too. Often times homes in good school districts cost more. If you don't consider the school district now, then you may be faced with a difficult decision when the kids start school. IF you are confident you won't want to move anytime soon and can find a house you like and want to jump into home ownership there are some programs that can help first time buyers, but they can require some effort on your part. FHA has a first time buyer program with a 3.5% down payment. You will need to search for a lender that offers FHA loans and work with them. FHA covers this program by charging mortgage insurance every month that's part of your house payment. Fannie Mae has the HomeReady program where first time home buyers can purchase a foreclosed home from their inventory for as little as 3% down and possibly get up to 3% from the seller to apply toward closing costs. Private mortgage insurance (PMI) is required with this program too. Their inventory of homes can be found on the https://www.homepath.com/ website. There is also NACA, which requires attending workshops and creating a detailed plan to prove you're ready for homeownership. This might be a good option if they have workshops in your area and you want to talk with someone in person. https://www.naca.com/about/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fefe47e0c321ca6c236aef3646d38a1",
"text": "Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? I'm going to concentrate on this question, particularly the first half. Net income $4500 per month (I'm taking this to be after taxes; correct me if wrong). Rent is $1600 and other expenses are up to $800. So let's call that $2500. That leaves you $2000 a month, which is $24,000 a year. You can contribute up to $18,000 a year to a 401k and if you want to maintain your income in retirement, you probably should. The average social security payment now is under $1200. You have an above average income but not a maximum income. So let's set that at $1500. You need an additional income stream of $900 a month in retirement plus enough to cover taxes. Another $5500 for an IRA (probably a Roth). That's $23,500. That leaves you $500 a year of reliable savings for other purposes. Another $5500 for an IRA (probably a Roth). That's $23,500. That leaves you $500 a year of reliable savings for other purposes. You are basically even. Your income is just about what you need to cover expenses and retirement. You could cover a monthly mortgage payment of $1600 and have a $100,000 down payment. That probably gets you around a $350,000 house, although check property taxes. They have to come out of the $1600 a month. That doesn't seem like a lot for a Bay area house even if it would buy a mansion in rural Mississippi. Perhaps think condo instead. Try to keep at least $15,000 to $27,000 as emergency savings. If you lose your job or get stuck with a required expense (e.g. a major house repair), you'll need that money. You don't have enough income to support a car unless it saves you money somewhere. $500 a year is probably not going to cover insurance, parking, gas, and maintenance. It's possible that you could tighten up your expenses, but in my experience, people are more likely to underestimate their expenses than overestimate. That's why I'm saying $2500 (a little above the high end) rather than $2000 (your low end estimate). If things are stable, wait a year and evaluate. Track your actual spending. Ask yourself if you made any large purchases. Your budget should include an appliance (TV, refrigerator, washer/dryer, etc.) a year. If you're not paying for that now (included in rent?), then you need to allow for it in your ownership budget. I do not consider an ESPP to be a reliable investment vehicle. Consider the Enron possibility. You wake up one day and find out that there is no actual money. Your stock is now worthless. A diversified portfolio can survive this. If you lose your job and your investment, you'll be stuck with just your savings. Hopefully you didn't just tie them up in a house that you might have to sell to take your next job in a different location. An ESPP might work as savings for the house. If something goes wrong, don't buy the house. But it's not retirement or emergency savings. I would say that you are OK but could be better. Get your retirement savings started. That does two things. One, it gives you money for retirement. Two, it keeps you from having extra money now when it is easy to develop expensive habits. An abrupt drop from $4500 in spending to $1200 will hurt. A smooth transition from $2500 to $2500 is what you would like to see. You are behind now, but you have the opportunity to catch up for a few years. Work out how much you'll get from Social Security and how much you need to cover your typical expenses with the occasional emergency. Expect high health care costs in retirement. Medicare covers a lot but not everything, and health care is only getting more expensive. Don't forget to assume higher taxes in the future to help cover that expense and the existing debt. After a few years of catch up contributions, work out your long term plan assuming a reasonable real (after inflation) rate of return. If you can reduce the $23,500 in retirement contributions then, that's OK. But be pessimistic. Most people overestimate good things and underestimate bad things. It's much better to have extra than not enough. A 401k comes with an administrator and your choice of mutual funds. Try for diversification. Some money in bonds (25% to 30%). The remainder in stocks. Look for index funds. Try for a mix of value and growth, as they'll do better at different times. As you approach retirement, you can convert some of that into shorter term, lower yield investments. The rough rule of thumb is to have two to five years of withdrawals in short term investments like money market funds. But that's more than twenty years off. You have more choices with an IRA. In particular, you can choose your own administrator. But I'd keep the same stock/bond mix and stick to index funds if you're not interested in researching the more complex options. You may want to invest your IRA in a growth fund and your 401k in value funds and bonds. Then balance the stock/bond mix across both. When you invest each year, look at the underrepresented funds and add the most to them. So if bonds had a bad year and didn't keep pace, invest in bonds. They're probably cheap. You don't want to rebalance frequently, but once a year might be a good pace. That's about how often you should invest in an IRA, so that can be a good time. I'll let the others answer on the financial advisor part.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f359e430e3e8e2f14b3d2d65a4f203e",
"text": "Congrats on making it this far debt free. It is rare, but nice to be in the situation that you are in. The important thing here is that you want to remain debt free. That's really what the emergency fund is all about: it keeps you from needing to go into debt should something unexpected happen. You've got 1.5 months worth of expenses saved up, and that's great. If you don't have a family or other responsibilities, that might be enough, but think about this: how are you paying for school, and what would happen if those funds stopped coming in? If you are paying for school out of your own income, what happens if you lose your job? If someone else, perhaps your parents, is paying for school, what happens if they are suddenly no longer able to do so? While you have extra cash, you want to be saving it up for situations like this. If I were you, I would build up that emergency fund until it got to the point where it could pay all your expenses and tuition until graduation. Hopefully, you won't need to touch it, but it will be there if you need it. Since you need to be able to access your money quickly, it is generally recommended to park this money in a savings account, where it is very safe. Mutual funds are a great way to invest, but they are not safe in the short term. Don't stress out about not being able to start retirement investing just yet. Making sure you can finish school debt free is the best investment you can make right now. After you graduate and land a job, you can start investing aggressively.",
"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": "34b8238b9b341a369a39f1f688b488d3",
"text": "\"If you don't plan to stay in it, it is never good money to try to buy a house in a bad neighborhood. The question you want to be asking is probably \"\"Is it smart to buy this piece of real estate,\"\" not \"\"is it smart to buy a house in college.\"\" In this case, it's probably not smart because you won't actually have revenue from the property (you'll break even compared to renting), you may face some expensive repairs (water heater or other appliances going out, etc.), and you may find that your startup costs in things like lawn mowers, etc. is not worth the hassle (or cost of lawn service if you have someone else do it.) On top of that, can you get a loan with your proven income and assets? Don't forget to factor the cost of selling the house again into it -- and how long can you leave it on the market after you move out if it doesn't sell without going bankrupt yourself? In my opinion, it'd be a giant albatross around your neck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b17769ae176dec951f352f9edcad1a0c",
"text": "\"According to your numbers, you just stated that you spend approximately $1500 in discretionary expenditures per month, yet are unable to save. I fully realize that living in a big city is usually expensive, but on your (presumably after-tax) salary, I think you can easily save a substantial portion of your income. As others have already noted, enforcing saving of a significant portion of your discretionary income is the most obvious step. It's easy to say, but I suspect that if you are like most people who have difficulty saving, the psychological impact of quitting your previous spending habits \"\"cold turkey\"\" is likely to be very harsh, all the more so if you have an active social life. You may find yourself becoming depressed or resentful at \"\"having\"\" to save. You may lose motivation to work as hard because you might think that you're putting away all this money for the distant future, whereas you are young now and want to enjoy life while you can. It is in this context, then, that I looked at your other financial obligations. Paying $1300/month to your parents is a lot. It's over 20% of your after-tax salary. You do not specify the reasons for doing this other than a vague sense of familial duty, but my recommendation is to see if this could be reduced somewhat. If you can bring it down to $1000/month, that $300 would go into your savings, and you would psychologically feel a lot better about putting, say, $600 of your own discretionary income into savings as well. Now you have, all told, about $1000/month of savings without severely curtailing your extra expenditures. But I would start with that $1500/month of luxury spending first. And yes, you do need to view it as luxury spending. The proper frame of mind is to compare your financial situation to someone who is truly unable to save because their entire income is spent on actual necessities: food and shelter; their effective tax rate is 0% because they earn too little; and they usually find themselves in debt because they cannot make ends meet. Now look back at that $1500/month. Can you honestly say that you cannot afford to cut that spending?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6d65c6d831b287676fd8d5364f40eac",
"text": "There are, of course, many possible financial emergencies. They range from large medical expenses to losing your job to being sued to major home or car repairs to who-knows-what. I suppose some people are in a position where the chances that they will face any sort of financial emergency are remote. If you live in a country with national health insurance and there is near-zero chance that you will have any need to go outside this system, you are living with your parents and they are equipped to handle any home repairs, you ride the bus or subway and don't own a car so that's not an issue, etc etc, maybe there just isn't any likely scenario where you'd suddenly need cash. I can think of all sorts of scenarios that might affect me. I'm trying to put my kids through college, so if I lost my job, even if unemployment benefits were adequate to live on, they wouldn't pay for college. I have terrible health insurance so big medical bills could cost me a lot. I have an old car so it could break down any time and need expensive repairs, or even have to be replaced. I might suddenly be charged with a crime that I didn't commit and need a lawyer to defend me. Etc. So in a very real sense, everyone's situation is different. On the other hand, no matter how carefully you think it out, it's always possible that you will get bitten by something that you didn't think of. By definition, you can't make a list of unforeseen problems that might affect you! So no matter how safe you think you are, it's always good to have some emergency fund, just in case. How much is very hard to say.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcfb94807ecbf6a57b0435b1d135e4c6",
"text": "\"Assuming the renter was properly vetted, the only question worth asking is \"\"what has changed in your life?\"\" Perhaps one of the earners has lost a job, or has moved out because a couple has broken up. If nothing has changed but they just don't feel like paying you, start the eviction process. If something has changed and you assess that it's temporary (I lent my brother money and he didn't pay me back - I'll be behind for a few months but I will catch up; my employer went out of business and didn't pay me for the last two weeks - I have a new job already and am waiting for my first paycheque) then perhaps you are willing to wait. If something has changed and it seems pretty permanent then you might reluctantly start the process. Depending on how long it takes where you live, the renter might get things under control before you finish.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2681455c470c3c82c7109f331a923077",
"text": "I'd be curious to compare current rent with what your overhead would be with a house. Most single people would view your current arrangement as ideal. When those about to graduate college ask for money advice, I offer that they should start by living as though they are still in college, share a house or multibedroomed apartment and sack away the difference. If you really want to buy, and I'd assume for this answer that you feel the housing market in your area has passes its bottom, I'd suggest you run the numbers and see if you can buy the house, 100% yours, but then rent out one or two rooms. You don't share your mortgage details, just charge a fair price. When the stars line up just right, these deals cost you the down payment, but the roommates pay the mortgage. I discourage the buying by two or more for the reasons MrChrister listed.",
"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": "fe641ec5ad4250f5b01cdca09248e555",
"text": "What you haven't mentioned is the purchase risk. You say that she will buy but then say you will be on the loan. If you are on the loan, essentially you will be purchasing a rental property and renting to your mother. So that is the analysis you need to consider. You need to be financially able to take on this purchase and be willing to be a landlord. The ten year timeline looks good on paper. This may not be realistic, especially with an aging parent. What if after 4 years, she can't stay in that condo? What renting buys is flexibility. If she needs money for any reason, it is not tied up in an asset and unavailable. She is able it move if necessary. If she won't need the money, she should buy in cash. That, by far, gives her the best deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2140584e169d629a1d505262f59597bf",
"text": "Smart parents not wanting to get stuck with a student loan or co-signing on a loan. because rent is so high Are you able to live with your parents? Is there anyway to reduce the cost of rent like renting a room? Can you move somewhere where the rent is cheaper? working 25 hours per week Working 25 hours per week and taking 6 hours is a pretty light schedule. It is not even 40 hours per week. What is stopping you from working 40 hours and paying for school from your salary? In my own life I created a pretty crappy situation for myself when I was a young man. I really wanted to go to a prestigious university, but ended up going to a community college, and then to a university that was lesser known in a less expensive area. I had to work like crazy, upwards of 50 hours per week. I also took a full load in a difficult degree program. You probably don't have to go to the extremes that I went through, but you can work more. Most adults work at their jobs well more than 40 hours per week, then come home and continue to work (on the house, raising kids, trying to start a side business, etc...). So you might as well become an adult now. There are ways to become independent from your parents for FAFSA like have a baby, get married, or join the military. I'd only recommend the last one as you will also receive the GI Bill. Another option is to try and obtain a job that offers financial aid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6950d92f340ffdb328d15afac8299aba",
"text": "BLUF: Continue renting, and work toward financial independence, you can always buy later if your situation changes. Owning the house you live in can be a poor investment. It is totally dependent on the housing market where you live. Do the math. The rumors may have depressed the market to the point where the houses are cheaper to buy. When you do the estimate, don't forget any homeowners association fees and periodic replacement of the roof, HVAC system and fencing, and money for repairs of plumbing and electrical systems. Calculate all the replacements as cost over the average lifespan of each system. And the repairs as an average yearly cost. Additionally, consider that remodeling will be needful every 20 years or so. There are also intangibles between owning and renting that can tip the scales no matter what the numbers alone say. Ownership comes with significant opportunity and maintenance costs and is by definition not liquid, but provides stability. As long as you make your payments, and the government doesn't use imminent domain, you cannot be forced to move. Renting gives you freedom from paying for maintenance and repairs on the house and the freedom to move with only a lease to break.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd51bd1a02a76631d26e89cfa4df81fc",
"text": "You're welcome. Pm me if you have questions. Ideally you would get to a point where you are debt free save a mortgage if that's where you are heading. Your interest rates a low enough save the credit card debt that you may want to look into an investment portfolio. Especially if you have more than $3k in cash. You don't need to keep that much cash at your age. Most investments are liquid enough you could get it out in a couple of days in case of an emergency. Though you will want to think about how taxes and market timing could affect you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1fb8eeb61bfd74a9bbfc6eed091fa748
|
Bank denying loan after “subject-to” appraisal: What to do?
|
[
{
"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": "b93a5d77409254fa60210ce84930525a",
"text": "\"The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is \"\"reasonable\"\" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender. Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an \"\"education expense\"\", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now. Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b74742b32b99f9bd32cd60cc84d3206f",
"text": "\"Often the counter-party has obligations with respect to timelines as well -- if your buying a house, the seller probably is too, and may have a time-sensitive obligation to close on the deal. I'm that scenario, carrying the second mortgage may be enough to make that deal fall through or result in some other negative impact. Note that \"\"pre-approval\"\" means very little, banks can and do pass on deals, even if the buyer has a good payment history. That's especially true when the economy is not so hot -- bankers in 2011 are worried about not losing money... In 2006, they were worried about not making enough!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa3d4b96522bea88e0bdae412d40b18e",
"text": "\"There is considerable truth to what your realtor said about the Jersey City NJ housing market these days. It is a \"\"hot\"\" area with lots of expensive condos being bought up by people working on Wall Street in NYC (very easy commute by train, etc) and in many cases, the offers to purchase can exceed the asking price significantly. Be that as is may, the issue with accepting a higher offer but smaller downpayment is that when the buyer's lender appraises the property, the valuation might come in lower and the buyer may have to come up with the difference, or be required to accept a higher interest rate, or be refused the loan altogether if the lender estimates that the buyer is likely to default on the loan because his credit-worthiness is inadequate to support the monthly payments. So, the sale might fall through. Suppose that the property is offered for sale at $500K, and consider two bids, one for $480K with 30% downpayment ($144K) and another for $500K with 20% downpayment ($100K). If the property appraises for $450K, say, and the lender is not willing to lend more than 80% of that ($360K), then Buyer #1 is OK; it is only necessary to borrow $480K - $144K = $336K, while Buyer #2 needs to come up with another $40K of downpayment to be able to get the loan, or might be asked to pay a higher interest rate since the lender will be lending more than 80% of the appraised value, etc. Of course, Buyer #2's lender might be using a different appraiser whose valuation might be higher etc, but appraisals usually are within the same ballpark. Furthermore, good seller's agents can make good estimates of what the appraisal is likely to be, and if the asking price is larger than the agent's estimate of appraised value, then it might be to the advantage of the selling agent to recommend accepting the lower offer with higher downpayment over the higher offer with smaller downpayment. The sale is more likely to go through, and an almost sure 6% of $480K (3% if there is a buyer's agent involved) in hand in 30 days time is worth more than a good chance of nothing at the end of 15 days when the mortgage is declined, during which the house has been off the market on the grounds that the sale is pending. If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford. If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K, and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!) really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision. What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3861087c248e59a31cf6b40248e0cf0f",
"text": "I wanted to know that what if the remaining 40% of 60% in a LTV (Loan to Value ratio ) for buying a home is not paid but the borrower only wants to get 60% of the total amount of home loan that is being provided by lending company. Generally, A lending company {say Bank] will not part with their funds unless you first pay your portion of the funds. This is essentially to safeguard their interest. Let's say they pay the 60% [either to you or to the seller]; The title is still with Seller as full payment is not made. Now if you default, the Bank has no recourse against the seller [who still owns the title] and you are not paying. Some Banks may allow a schedule where the 60/40 may be applied to every payment made. This would be case to case basis. The deal could be done with only paying 20% in the beginning to the buyer and then I have to pay EMI's of $7451. The lending company is offering you 1.1 million assuming that you are paying 700K and the title will be yours. This would safeguard the Banks interest. Now if you default, the Bank can take possession of the house and recover the funds, a distress sale may be mean the house goes for less than 1.8 M; say for 1.4 million. The Bank would take back the 1.1 million plus interest and other closing costs. So if you can close the deal by paying only 20%, Bank would ask you to close this first and then lend you any money. This way if you are not able to pay the balance as per the deal agreement, you would be in loss and not the Bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "429d032007dcb3fc973f02149c9d81d6",
"text": "Banks in New Zealand tend to take a lien that is higher than the amount of the loan, so that your only option for a second mortgage is with them. ASB wanted 50% more than the value of the loan when I had my mortgage with them. Of course, with house price inflation the way it's been in NZ, the value of your house may have outstripped the lien anyway, and you can mortgage the rest of it with anyone you like. I suspect your lawyer will need to inform the other lienholder, but you don't need their permission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91b0b134e6ab3649906599f949af935f",
"text": "The bank doesn't want to loan you money to build a house on property you don't own. What happens if the owner gets mad at you and wants you to leave? What happens if the owner's will gives the land to somebody else? The bank would be taking a big risk. You need to buy the land before building the house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7927517d12481b9d1660cac99e8367d5",
"text": "Never ever use a giant monster mega bank for home loans. I am sure you probably didn't and they bought your loan from someone else. You have no legal options. What you should do Is look at getting a new loan maybe a 15 year loan. Your payment might be the same with no PMI. I would check with a relator to see what they think your home is worth. Also if you have any money you can always pay extra to the principle and get yourself to 20% based on the next appraisal. You might have a legal option regarding what they say you need in value 350k is what it should appraise to for you to get rid of pmi when you owe 280k Remember Citibank is a publicly traded company and their goal is to make more money. The CEO has a fiduciary relationship with stock holders not customers. They seriously have board meetings to figure out what charges they can invent to screw their customers and make shitloads of money. There is no incentive for them to let you get out of your PMI.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a5d9fd18704adeef6278900266fbf8d",
"text": "\"The comments are getting too much, but to verify that you are not insane, you are being bullied. It sounds like this is a sub-prime loan, of which you are wisely trying to get out of. It also sounds like they are doing everything in their power to prevent you from doing so. For them you are a very profitable customer. This might take some legwork for you, but depending on how bad they are violating the law they might be willing to forgive the loan. What I am trying to say, it might be very worth your while! Your first step will be looking for any free resources at your disposal: Just be cautious as many \"\"credit representation\"\" type business are only offering loan consolidation. That is not what you need. Fight those bastards!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e5fe8aaa425cd08ca576a07c27c3f16",
"text": "You'd have to consult a lawyer in the state that the transaction took place to get a definitive answer. And also provide the details of the contract or settlement agreement. That said, if you clearly presented the check as payment (verbally or otherwise) and they accepted and cashed the check, and it cleared, you should have good legal standing to force them to finalize the payment. While they had every right to refuse the payment, and also every right to place a hold on the credit until the transaction cleared their bank, they don't have the right to simply claim the payment as a gift just because it came in a different form than they specified in the contract. Obviously this is a lesson learned on reading the fine print though. And, to be frank, it sounds like someone wants to make life difficult for you for whatever reason. And if that is the case I would refer back to my initial comment about contacting a lawyer in that state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40a3ed42a95a261f1ea50c917cd0b435",
"text": "Make sure that when you have the loan you still contribute enough to get the company match. For example: An inability to maximize the match might need to be figured into the opportunity cost of the loan. Some companies will suspend your contributions for a specific number of months for a hardship withdraw. Make sure you understand where the money comes from for the loan. Can you count the money that the company matched but you are not vested with, when determining the maximum amount of the loan? If the money is in what is now a closed fund can you replenish the funds back into that fund if use it to fund the loan? Know what the repayment time period is of the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaec0527d5e0ab0cafc2ab3505c52c0c",
"text": "If I understand correctly you describe putting a hold on an appartment as such: A sum of money that you give to the owner of the appartment to let them hold it for you because you are probably going to rent. In case you back out of the deal, this money can mitigate the expected loss from turning down other candidates. After asking them to hold the appartment for you, you decided not to rent. Also, you used the bank to get back the hold sum. Regardless of the legal details, it seems very clear to me that after putting down a hold and walking away, you should not get the money back. There may have been some things that distracted/confused you (call about the key), but if you actually look at the things that happened it seems both right and practical to pay them their reclaimed hold as soon as possible.",
"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": "ffd1a93e5ba8df50304b578f7aee6402",
"text": "As far as I can see, this is an issue of the bank's policy rather than some legal regulation. That means that you'll need to work it out with the bank. To give you a couple of ideas to work with when you talk with them, maybe something from this list will work: Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a5bb0e9b47404b931db4000eeea9f93",
"text": "It's sad. My mother lost her job after a brutal divorce. BOA bought up Countrywide, then when my mother pleaded for assistance BOA said they could not help her unless she was behind/in default of her mortgage. She tried to do a deed-in-lieu with a lawyer and BOA refused to accept the deed-in-lieu many times. Then BOA sold her mortgage to Green Tree (?) and they refused her deed-in-lieu as well. This went on for over 2 years and they foreclosed on the house. I told my mother to sue because they should have accepted her deed-in-lieu because it was approved by the court in her bankruptcy but she was tired of trying to save her house that she just walked away. 6 months after she left and moved in with my sister Green Tree called her offering a refinance at a lower rate and a mortgage payment that was less than a typical car payment. Now 5 years later my mom is just going to pay cash for her house and never do a mortgage again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5d1e46007a73134f5a59e6f5781bd63",
"text": "To supplement existing answers: the appraised value does not necessarily represent the net amount the bank could actually recover with a foreclosure. Let's look at it from the point of view of the bank. Suppose the property appraises at $200,000 and they do what you want: loan you $200,000 with the property as collateral. Now suppose a short time later, you quit paying the mortgage and they have to foreclose. Can the bank get their $200,000 back? An appraisal is only an estimate; nobody can predict perfectly how much a property will sell for. Maybe the appraiser missed something significant, and the property will only fetch $180,000. Even if the appraisal was accurate when it was made, property values may have dropped in the meantime. Maybe a sudden economic crisis is driving real estate prices down across the board. Maybe interest rates have spiked. Maybe the county has changed the zoning regulations to locate a toxic waste dump next door to the property. In any of these cases, the property may again fetch well under $200,000. Maybe the condition of the property has changed. Perhaps you trashed the place and it will take $30,000 to clean it up. (People have a tendency to do things like that when they get foreclosed.) If the bank wants to get full market value for the property, they will incur the usual costs of selling a property: paying a real estate agent's commission, painting, renting furniture to stage the property, and so on. This will eat into the net amount they actually get from the sale. It may take some time (perhaps months) for a property to sell at its full market value. During this time, the bank is out $200,000. That's money they would rather be loaning out at interest to someone else, so this represents lost income. Foreclosing a mortgage is a fairly complicated procedure. The bank has to pay its staff, including lawyers, for a significant number of hours to get the foreclosure done. There will be court filing fees and so on. If you refuse to leave, they may have to get the sheriff to evict you; that has a fee as well. If you fight the foreclosure, that racks up even more legal fees. This too eats into the net proceeds from the sale. So if the bank loans you the full $200,000, they stand a pretty significant risk of not getting all of it back, after expenses. You can understand that risk may not be worth the interest they would get from you on the extra $40,000. On the other hand, if they loan you only 80% of the property's appraised value ($160,000), they effectively shift that risk onto you. Should you default on the loan, and they foreclose, all they have to do is sell the property for $160,000 or a little bit more. That shouldn't be too hard, even if it is not freshly painted or a bit trashed. They probably don't need to hire a real estate agent: just hold a quick auction, maybe first calling up a few investors who might be interested in flipping it. If it happens to sell for more than the outstanding principal of the loan, plus the bank's costs, then they will pay you the difference; but they have no incentive to make that happen, and every incentive to just get it sold quick. So any difference between the property's true value and the actual sale price now represents a loss to you first, not to the bank. So you can see why the bank would rather not loan you the full value of the property. 80% is a somewhat arbitrary figure but it cuts their risk by a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57a7e001107705c229929c34469f426f",
"text": "It's just possible that if you have your home appraised (probable cost a few hundred $), and the value is sufficiently higher than what the mortgage company is owed, that they will let this slide, since they are covered. Many banks, at least, allow secured lines of credit against the equity in your home, and allow the amount of the loan to increase if/as the value of the property goes up and your equity increases. However, I'd run this by the mortgage company before investing in the appraisal, since they may not be as flexible this way as the banks I've dealt with, and in any case it's a gamble unless you are certain of the value of your property.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ef76a587d7f05581ebf20b16fd386749
|
Why do employers require you to spread your 401(k) contributions throughout the year to get the maximum match?
|
[
{
"docid": "bb94e221d756e5f6d72e01cf92db0b83",
"text": "If one makes say, $10K/mo, and the company will match the first 5% dollar for dollar, a 10%/mo deposit of $1K/mo will see a $500/mo match. If the employee manages to request 90% get put into the 401(k), after 2 months, he's done. If the company wished, they could continue the $500/mo match, I agree. They typically don't and in fact, the 'true up' you mention isn't even required, one is fortunate to get it. Many companies that match are going the other way, matching only after the year is over. Why? Why does any company do anything? To save money. I used to make an attempt to divide my deposit over the year to max out the 401(k) in December and get the match real time, not a true up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2c1b00df06d1bb3490603195f864b2e",
"text": "\"The only way to know the specific explanation in your situation is to ask your employer. Different companies do it differently, and they will have their reasons for that difference. I've asked \"\"But why is it that way?\"\" enough times to feel confident in telling you it's rarely an arbitrary decision. In the case of your employer's policy, I can think of a number of reasons why they would limit match earnings per paycheck: Vesting, in a sense - Much as stock options have vesting requirements where you have to work for a certain amount of time to receive the options, this policy works as a sort of vesting mechanism for your employer matching funds. Without it, you could rapidly accumulate your full annual match amount in a few pay periods at the beginning of the year, and then immediately leave for employment elsewhere. You gain 100% of the annual match for only 1-2 months of work, while the employees who remain there all year work 12 months to gain the same 100%. Dollar Cost Averaging - By purchasing the same investment vehicle at different prices over time, you can reduce the impact of volatility on your earnings. For the same reason that 401k plans usually restrict you to a limited selection of mutual funds - namely, the implicit assumption is that you probably have little to no clue about investing - they also do other strategic things to encourage employees to invest (at least somewhat) wisely. By spacing their matching fund out over time, they encourage you to space your contributions over time, and they thereby indirectly force you to practice a sensible strategy of dollar cost averaging. Dollar Cost Averaging, seen from another angle - Mutual funds are the 18-wheeler trucks of the investment super-highway. They carry a lot of cargo, but they are difficult to start, stop, or steer quickly. For the same reasons that DCA is smart for you, it's also smart for a fund. The money is easier to manage and invest according to the goals of the fund if the investments trickle in over time and there are no sudden radical changes. Imagine if every employer that does matching allowed the full maximum match to be earned on the first paycheck of the year - the mutual funds in 401ks would get big balloons of money in January followed by a drastically lower investment for the rest of the year. And that would create volatility. Plan Administration Fees - Your employer has to pay the company managing the 401k for their services. It is likely that their agreement with the management company requires them to pay on a monthly basis, so it potentially makes things convenient for the accounting people on both ends if there's a steady monthly flow of money in and out. (Whether this point is at all relevant is very much dependent on how your company's agreement is structured, and how well the folks handling payroll and accounting understand it.) The Bottom Line - Your employer (let us hope) makes profits. And they pay expenses. And companies, for a variety of financial reasons, prefer to spread their profits and expenses as evenly over the year as they can. There are a lot of ways they achieve this - for example, a seasonal business might offer an annual payment plan to spread their seasonal revenue over the year. Likewise, the matching funds they are paying to you the employees are coming out of their bottom line. And the company would rather not have the majority of those funds being disbursed in a single quarter. They want a nice, even distribution. So once again it behooves them to create a 401k system that supports that objective. To Sum Up Ultimately, those 401k matching funds are a carrot. And that carrot manipulates you the employee into behaving in a way that is good for your employer, good for your investment management company, and good for your own investment success. Unless you are one of the rare birds who can outperform a dollar-cost-averaged investment in a low-cost index fund, there's very little to chafe at about this arrangement. If you are that rare bird, then your investment earning power likely outstrips the value of your annual matching monies significantly, in which case it isn't even worth thinking about.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e89046abe2d4a4719ed99595769f25a",
"text": "There's no such requirement in general. If your particular employer requires that - you should address the question to the HR/payroll department. From my experience, matches are generally not conditioned on when you contribute, only how much.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f42b4ffa483f0afe314462226a690989",
"text": "Let me add another consideration to the company's side of the equation. Not only is a 401K a tool for the company to make them competitive when recruiting employees among other companies that offer that benefit, it is also a good retention tool. Most company's 401K plans include a vesting period of at least 3 years, sometimes more. An employee that leaves the company before they are vested in the plan will have to give up some % of the employer matched funds in the account. This gives employees incentive to stick around longer and the company reduces the risk of turnover which can be costly in terms of training and recruiting. This also factors into the reason why employers would rather give matching on the 401K than a simple pay raise. Some of those employees are going to leave during the vesting period anyway, and when that happens the employer got the benefit of motivating (extrinsically) the employee, but in the end got to keep some of the money.",
"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": "54e754ce4fc0686eee8103b92443ece8",
"text": "You are not allowed to take a routine 401(k) withdrawal each year. There are specific reasons that you might be allowed to take a withdrawal and what you're proposing doesn't fit into those categories.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97cf05dfe3028c0d5c154cf84ef6da1e",
"text": "Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f420513b014569976ec901c2c77754fe",
"text": "There is no Roth 401(k) match. Or to be clear, when an employee deposits to a Roth 401(k), the company match goes into the traditional, pre-tax 401(k) account. That money is subject to both tax and 10% penalty on early withdrawal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b045ab5efacdbcc1e74709409734fd03",
"text": "Its easier than that: employer matching contributions are always pre-tax. While your contribution is split between the pre-tax and the Roth post-tax parts, matching contributions are always pre-tax. Quote from the regulations I linked to: For example, matching contributions are not permitted to be allocated to a designated Roth account. So the tax you pay is only on the Roth portion of your contribution. One of the reasons for that is the complexity you're talking about, but not only. Matching is not always vested, and it would be hard to determine what portion to tax and at what rate if matching would be allowed to go to Roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "381ac48cf2db90a9ec2b8b900edf4b5c",
"text": "Your question doesn't make much sense. The exceptions are very specific and are listed on this site (IRS.GOV). I can't see how you can use any of the exceptions regularly while still continuing being employed and contributing. In any case, you pay income tax on any distribution that has not been taxed before (which would be a Roth account or a non-deductible IRA contribution). Including the employer's match. Here's the relevant portion: The following additional exceptions apply only to distributions from a qualified retirement plan other than an IRA:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "232e578503b1027f16e365fd142129f7",
"text": "The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c78db55b0acf1739683447af345420ff",
"text": "You're going to find a lot of conflicting or vague answers on the internet because there are a lot of plan design elements that are set by the plan sponsor (employer). There are laws that mandate certain elements and dictate certain requirements of plan sponsors, many of these laws are related to record keeping and fiduciary duty. There is a lot of latitude for plan sponsors to allow or restrict employee actions even if there is no law against that activity. There are different rules mandated for employee pre-tax contributions, employee post-tax contributions, and employer contributions. You have more flexibility with regard to the employer contributions and any post tax contributions you may have made; your plan may allow an in-service distribution of those two items before you reach age 59.5. While your HR department (like most -all- HR departments) is not staffed with ERISA attorneys and CPAs it is your HR department and applicable plan documents that will lay out what an employee is permitted to do under the plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a70ddb5bf96ad9b69ec5802f346d0bb6",
"text": "\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "577d17a91d08a46f7c4dc389251b2675",
"text": "This creates incentive for the employee to contribute more and increases the funds under management of the 401(k) plan. The size of the plan influences the fees that are charged in each of the funds offered. (The more assets under management, the better for those in the plan.) More importantly, 401(k) plans are not allowed to discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. That discrimination is determined by calculating the average deferrals by your lower compensated employees and comparing them to the average deferrals of your highly compensated employees. If highly compensated employees are saving too much compared to the rest of the pack, they will have some of their contributions returned the next year (with all the tax implications of that). Forcing everyone to contribute 6% to get the full match helps the plan to not fail the discrimination test and protects the highly compensated employees from losing some of their tax deferrals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cfee81ee560fd815c85df96c86850ae",
"text": "One important thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that the vast majority of companies have eventually eliminated their Company provided Pension Plans and replaced it with a 401K with some degree of matching. There is a cost advantage to doing this as companies no longer have to maintain or work to maintain a 100% vested pension plan. This takes a great burden off them. They also don't have to manage the pension/annuity that the retirement benefit entails.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26c255888277af7da246bef7b3112c78",
"text": "\"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the \"\"buy low\"\" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60b55f3ee8e6c9f9196cadb600e714ef",
"text": "\"I agree with the other answers that it is a benefit, but wanted to add another explanation for this: Also, why a company would prefer matching someone's contributions (and given him or her additional free money) instead of just offering a simple raise? In addition to a match being a benefit that is part of your total compensation, 401ks have special rules for Highly Compensated Employees. If the lower paid employees do not contribute, the \"\"Highly Compensated Employees\"\" do not get to take full advantage of the 401k. By offering a match, more lower paid employees will take advantage of a 401k program allowing more Highly Compensated Employees to also take advantage of the program.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52ac5428aefb5e55a7576108668702e0",
"text": "Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5faf04b80d5028018799815790837e2b
|
Is there a benefit, long term, to life insurance for a youngish, debt, and dependent free person?
|
[
{
"docid": "ee4f235b4d714e73d6ee48e3cc39143b",
"text": "There is no benefit in life insurance as such (ie, death insurance.) There is a great deal of value in other types though: total and permanent disability insurance, trauma insurance (a lump sum for a major medical event), and income protection insurance (cover against a temporary but disabling medical condition). If you don't have that, you should get it right now. This is about the most important insurance you can carry. Being unable to work for the rest of your life has a far larger impact than having, say, your car stolen. ... If, later on, you acquire dependents, and you feel you ought to have life insurance, then you will have a relationship with a life insurance company, and maybe they will let you upgrade from income/TPD to income/TPD/life without too much fuss or requalification. Some do; whether yours would I don't know. But at least you have a toe in the door with them, in a way that is infinitely more immediately useful than getting life insurance that you don't actually need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af02b3b52407fb1095c82f3e24c29f34",
"text": "If there are no dependents, there is no need for life insurance. You mention getting insurance when it is not needed, to protect you against some future risk. If you have a policy and a disease crops up that would normally make you un-insurable, you can keep your insurance for the rest of the term. The cost for this would be very high. You would have to have a term that would last decades to cover you until some future child is out of college. If you never have somebody that depends on you for income, there never is a need for life insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ec1ba1b17dda00950e30201d22de91d",
"text": "\"For most situations the \"\"no need\"\" answers are 100% correct. The corner case to think about depends on your health and your family history. Not to be morose, but if folks in your family who died young from heart issues, clusters of cancer or other terminal illnesses, you may want to consider getting medically qualified for a modest amount of insurance when you are young. Then, when you have children, you usually have the option of incrementally upgrading your coverage over time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e29bc8c9c4d905e2a43a95cbb0da7cc1",
"text": "\"As others have said, if you don't have dependents, there's little need for life insurance. If you can't think of any obvious beneficiary for an insurance policy, than you probably don't need one. \"\"Dependents\"\" here should be understood broadly. It wouldn't necessarily be limited to wife and children. If you're the only support for your handicapped cousin, for example, you might want to provide for him. But I take it from your question that you have no such special case. Of course even if you have no dependents now, you might pick some up in the future. And if and when that does happen, your medical situation may have changed, making it difficult to get life insurance. But if you have no immediate plans so that any such even is likely to be far away, a serious alternative to consider would be to invest the money you would have paid in insurance premiums. Then if someday you do acquire dependents, you have a pot of money set aside to provide for them in case something happens to you. If it's not enough and you can get insurance at that time, then great, but if you can't get insurance, at least there's something. If you never do acquire dependents, you can consider that pot of money part of your retirement fund.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d31afb23d1362c3d8ae5cbc15fb6ac4",
"text": "As Mhoran stated, no dependents, no need. Even with dependants, insurance is to cover those who would otherwise have a hardship. Once the kids are off to college and house paid for, the need drops dramatically. There are some rather complex uses for insurance when estates are large but potentially illiquid. Clearly this doesn't apply to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8177505fb3f012694faa2ced7ad40d4d",
"text": "\"There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of \"\"Insurance\"\" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of \"\"insurance\"\", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program. The problem, is 'disability' and what is deemed the same by the experience of the particular 'Underwriter', in your location. For Death Benefits, Where there is an Accident, for Motor Vehicle Accidents (and 50,000 People in the US die annually) these are covered by Motor Vehicle Policy contracts, and vary from State to State. Check the Registrar of State Insurance Co's for your state to see who are the market leaders and the claim /payout ratios, compared to insurance in force. Depending on the particular, 'Underwiriter' there may be significant differences, and different results in premium, depending on your employer. (Warren Buffet did not Invest in GEICO, because of his benevolence to those who purchase Insurance Policies with GEICO). The original Poster mentions some paramaters such as Age, Smoking, and other 'Risk factors'.... , but does not mention the 'Soft Factors' that are not mentioned. They are, 'Risk Factors' such, as Incidence of Murder, in the region you live, the Zip Code, you live at, and the endeavours that you enjoy when you are not in your occupation. From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation. IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d446846369a78284f7692921324ee4c6",
"text": "\"Careful with saying \"\"no need\"\". Look careful at the cost of life insurance. That cost depends obviously on the amount, but also on the age when you start paying into the insurance. If you take out a $100,000 insurance at 20, and someone else takes it out at 30, and a third person at 50, they will pay hugely different amounts when you reach the same age. You will pay less when you are 50 then the person taking out insurance at 30 when they reach the age of 50, and less again than the person who just started with their life insurance. And as mhoran said, once you have insurance you can keep it even if you get an illness that would make you uninsurable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "826e33c2cd454c37fbbb27078840224d",
"text": "Term life insurance for a healthy 30 year old is a heck of a lot cheaper than for a 40 year old who's starting to break down (and who needs the coverage since he's got a spouse and kids). So, get a long term policy now while it's cheap.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f2bafadcd0846e0c462f6e6c8191488b",
"text": "We frequently get whole insurance vs term insurance questions; and most of the answers will support term insurance. We get questions regarding getting insurance before there is a need in case there is a problem getting it later. And for most people it doesn't make sense to over-insure early. You have asked from a slightly different position, you have a more solid reason to be concerned about your health. You don't have a need now, and can't estimate what your need will be, or when it will be. Those numbers you quote may seem high, but when you don't know how many kids you may have, or what you will need to protect against, they may turn out to be inadequate when you do need the insurance. You need to sit down with a fee only financial planner. They can lay out your options today, and as your situation changes. Then as the years go by, have that plan reexamined. The fee only planner will not tell you what company to buy insurance from, or what funds to invest in, but they will help you decide what types of protection and investment you need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "730ad7c986ba008c4a3dfbaf3aed190d",
"text": "At their age, the likely did not even need the coverage anymore unless they were doing some major estate planning. If that's the case then it sound like they purchased the wrong policy to begin with since OP's account of the information makes it sound like a term policy. If it is a term policy, the term was also probably about to end as well. In the end, this will likely not be a bog deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb0aaf07385a614da2199677cdbf2c77",
"text": "Look into the Coverdell Education Savings Account (ESA). This is like a Roth IRA for higher education expenses. Withdrawals are tax free when used for qualified expenses. Contributions are capped at $2000/year per beneficiary (not per account) so it works well for young kids, and not so well for kids about to go to College. This program (like all tax law) are prone to changes due to action (or inaction) in the US Congress. Currently, some of the benefits are set to sunset in 2010 though they are expected to be renewed in some form by Congress this year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d18033444d5e4d44f12219c7e5182102",
"text": "The purpose of long term care insurance is to pay for your long term care while protecting your assets. This is highly recommended to people who have high risk factors or family history. People who will most likely receive care should purchase this as early as possible in order to avoid the soaring cost of coverage and care. Another reason why people should buy this is is because of the much longer life expectancy today. Statistics would show that about 70% of people who are 65 years old will need long term care. This is obviously high and alarming. For me, this is enough to encourage people to prepare for their future and buy insurance for long term care.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53bdf838a2709ffdd535c342eae41bdc",
"text": "Term life insurance makes sense if you will have a need for money if someone dies. If you (and your brothers) do not have enough money currently for a proper burial for your father, then you might consider term insurance to cover this. If you already have the money to cover this (or can save for it in a short amount of time), then you are better off financially to not purchase the insurance. Estimate what you think it will cost for a burial, then determine if you have this money available to you. If you already do, then don't purchase the insurance. If you do not have this money available to you, then you can look into a term life insurance policy on your father. You definitely do not want a whole life insurance policy. This will cost many more times what a term policy costs. A term policy is a policy with an expiration date. For example, let's say that you determine that you will need $10,000 when your father dies for the funeral and burial. You could get a 10-year policy on your father for $10,000. Over the next 10 years, besides paying your premiums, save up $10,000 ($1,000 each year) in some type of savings/investing account. Hopefully, your father will still be around 10 years from now, and you won't need the insurance policy anymore, because you will have saved enough to cover the costs when the time comes. Doing this will almost always cost you less than getting a whole life policy, which never expires, but has much higher premiums. There are also 20-year term policies, which will cost more, but will give you more time to save up your fund. The costs for these policies depend on your father's age, so get a quote for both and decide what will work for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ab7a895569eedf19577c89144cf4853",
"text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a7c8e7009cd6b8c165cf6a0622657ef4",
"text": "\"The risk is that the \"\"free\"\" service may be supporting itself by steering customers to products which part a sales commission, or that are products of the company/bank that employees then, rather than those which are actually best for the customer. If you go in with a skeptical outlook, watching for this sort of conflict of interest, it's possible they might be useful. But that's not exactly a glowing recommendation... If they try to tell you that insurance is an investment, or if they recommend anything other than low-fee index funds without an extremely good reason, run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18b79cd0bd218a253049cfab75afeb3a",
"text": "There is an opportunity cost of your future insurance needs, Here, the savings vs risks ratio is difficult to figure out. Hence it is always worth that extra cost to buy the larger and longer policy if you can afford it. Basically if you can afford it today, it will cost peanuts after 20 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "25c73c24fa91cd5756013eee21f7adfb",
"text": "I'm not the guy you're responding to, but you asked a good question. There's a dearth of data, but [about 1% is the estimate.] (http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20110814/NEWS03/308149986#) Either way, having increased young adults on an insurance plan is a good thing. Socially, this demographic is exceptionally stinging from the Great Recession and I think the ability to give young adults health insurance (and thus the freedom to start developing a career without worrying about health coverage) outweighs the nominal additional premium costs. Fiscally, having young adults in a group plan decreases the risk profile of that plan since young adults don't incur the same expenses that a 45 or 50 year old would.",
"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": "62769608f166b86eac37da984ac5e9f8",
"text": "\"Nobody has mentioned your \"\"risk tolerance\"\" and \"\"investment horizon\"\" for this money. Any answer should take into account whether you can afford to lose it all, and how soon you'll need your investment to be both liquid and above water. You can't make any investment decision at all and might as well leave it in a deposit-insured, zero-return account until you inderstand those two terms and have answers for your own situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "953998066744ca70bd3d52152d186a3a",
"text": "\"If you are interested in a career in algorithmic trading, I strongly encourage you to formally study math and computer science. Algorithmic trading firms have no need for employees with financial knowledge; if they did, they'd just be called \"\"trading\"\" firms. Rather, they need experts in machine learning, statistical modeling, and computer science in general. Of course there are other avenues of employment at an algorithmic trading firm, such as accounting, clearing, exchange relations, etc. If that's the sort of thing you're interested in, again you'll probably want a formal education in those areas as opposed to just reading about finance in the news. If you edit your question or add a comment below with information about your particular background, I could perhaps advise you in a bit more detail. ::edit:: Given your comment, I would say you have a fine academic background for the industry. When hiring mathematicians, firms care most about the ease with which you can explore and extract features from massive datasets (especially time series) regardless of what the dataset might represent. An intelligent firm will not care whether you arrive at their doorstep with zero finance knowledge; they will want to teach you everything from scratch anyway. Nonetheless, some domain knowledge could be helpful, but you're not going to get \"\"more\"\" of it from reading any mass market news source, whether you have to pay for it or not. That's because Some non-mass-market news sources in the industry are These are subscription-only and actually discuss real information that real professional investors care about. They are loaded with industry jargon, they're extremely opinionated, and (in my opinion) they're useless. I can't imagine trying to learn about the industry from them, but if you want to spend money for news in order to be exposed to the innards of the industry, then either of these is far better than the Financial Times. Despite requiring a subscription, the Financial Times still does not cover the technical details of professional trading. Instead of trying to learn from news, then, I would suggest some old favorites: and, above all else, Read everything in the navigation box on the right side under Financial Markets and Financial Instruments.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cdebe29b008de6d02511e3052b676368
|
How does end-of-year interact with mutual fund prices (if it does)?
|
[
{
"docid": "1d7415e57f6fb728475f29326f504f12",
"text": "\"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ef1d46e35b4796f95e4728a467cc4b46",
"text": "\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b962d0c6c11e5ca3e77f09acaddf793b",
"text": "Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a252d3d90b6059f7c527797d75585a7",
"text": "\"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \"\"mutual fund has\"\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \"\"realized\"\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \"\"capital gains distributions\"\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \"\"capital gains distributions\"\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6098bada08d41d7fd8943cd63346d6f",
"text": "From The Prospectus for VTIVX; as compared to the Total Stock Market Fund; You can see how the Target date fund is a 'pass through' type of expense. It's not an adder. That's how I read this.",
"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": "8e8af2153d47ac0e34eafd553a1d3ccd",
"text": "After searching a bit and talking to some investment advisors in India I got below information. So thought of posting it so that others can get benefited. This is specific to indian mutual funds, not sure whether this is same for other markets. Even currency used for examples is also indian rupee. A mutual fund generally offers two schemes: dividend and growth. The dividend option does not re-invest the profits made by the fund though its investments. Instead, it is given to the investor from time to time. In the growth scheme, all profits made by the fund are ploughed back into the scheme. This causes the NAV to rise over time. The impact on the NAV The NAV of the growth option will always be higher than that of the dividend option because money is going back into the scheme and not given to investors. How does this impact us? We don't gain or lose per se by selecting any one scheme. Either we make the choice to get the money regularly (dividend) or at one go (growth). If we choose the growth option, we can make money by selling the units at a high NAV at a later date. If we choose the dividend option, we will get the money time and again as well as avail of a higher NAV (though the NAV here is not as high as that of a growth option). Say there is a fund with an NAV of Rs 18. It declares a dividend of 20%. This means it will pay 20% of the face value. The face value of a mutual fund unit is 10 (its NAV in this case is 18). So it will give us Rs 2 per unit. If we own 1,000 units of the fund, we will get Rs 2,000. Since it has paid Rs 2 per unit, the NAV will fall from Rs 18 to Rs 16. If we invest in the growth option, we can sell the units for Rs 18. If we invest in the dividend option, we can sell the units for Rs 16, since we already made a profit of Rs 2 per unit earlier. What we must know about dividends The dividend is not guaranteed. If a fund declared dividends twice last year, it does not mean it will do so again this year. We could get a dividend just once or we might not even get it this year. Remember, though, declaring a dividend is solely at the fund's discretion; the periodicity is not certain nor is the amount fixed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b609126cbf14eb629535679ac0a875d7",
"text": "Hello, I was curious if anyone had any insight as to why some mutual funds had different settlement dates than others. I've seen many funds that settle T+1 and some that are T+2 and yet others that are even longer than that. Just curious what is going on behind the scenes that could cause the variation in settlement times. I've looked on investopedia, my broker's website and other google related searches and couldn't find an answer. If anyone had a link or experience with this I would appreciate the information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e1b383fd0db28de0e0948544e307d5f",
"text": "Yes, add the stocks/mutual funds that you want and then you would just need to add all the transactions that you theoretically would have made. Performing the look up on the price at each date that you would have sold or bought is quite tedious as well as adding each transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9540286c4bcd9d9b76518407c6796ed",
"text": "The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses. If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns. If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease. This happens from time to time with riskier funds. It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis. In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund. If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daccd8ca0d17624588d8df91bea8c332",
"text": "One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa381432a94c74fa8cc9b5ffd9ec4751",
"text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "046ecaa7a1cf3caaa077dc7b109211f5",
"text": "Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35c459b8792369297e41681430c55724",
"text": "Mutual funds are collections of investments that other people pay to join. It would be simpler to calculate the value of all these investments at one time each day, and then to deem that any purchases or sales happen at that price. The fund diversifies rather than magnifies risk, looking to hold rather than enjoy a quick turnaround. Nobody really needs hourly updated price information for an investment they intend to hold for decades. They quote their prices on a daily basis and you take the daily price. This makes sense for a vehicle that is a balanced collection of many different assets, most of which will have varying prices over the course a day. That makes pricing complicated. This primer explains mutual fund pricing and the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which mandates daily price reporting. It also illustrates the complexity: How does the fund pricing process work? Mutual fund pricing is an intensive process that takes place in a short time frame at the end of the day. Generally, a fund’s pricing process begins at the close of the New York Stock Exchange, normally 4 p.m. Eastern time. The fund’s accounting agent, which may be an affiliated entity such as the fund’s adviser, or a third-party servicer such as the fund’s administrator or custodian bank, is usually responsible for calculating the share price. The accounting agent obtains prices for the fund’s securities from pricing services and directly from brokers. Pricing services collect securities prices from exchanges, brokers, and other sources and then transmit them to the fund’s accounting agent. Fund accounting agents internally validate the prices received by subjecting them to various control procedures. For example, depending on the nature and extent of its holdings, a fund may use one or more pricing services to ensure accuracy. Note that under Rule 22c-1 forward pricing, fund shareholders receive the next daily price, not the last daily price. Forward pricing makes sense if you want shareholders to get the most accurate sale or purchase price, but not if you want purchasers and sellers to be able to make precise calculations about gains and losses (how can you be precise if the price won't be known until after you buy or sell?).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75f914274e0dd57bcb5f30258ce50a8c",
"text": "One estimate is to sell today, estimate the taxes, and determine how much cash you need to set aside over the next 12 months. The is no way to calculate what impact dividends and capital gains the funds will have, because unlike interest they aren't guaranteed. The other complexity is that the funds themselves could drop in value. In that case the dividends and capital gains may not even be enough to get you back to even. I use mutual funds to invest over the long term, with the idea of spending the funds over decades. When needing to save for a short term goal, I use banking products. They are guaranteed not to lose value, and the interest changes are slowerand thus easier to predict.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b994b0f50c6b08e9548da99ccc0e2b00",
"text": "I don't think that they ask you for your citizenship status when you apply in a dealership. At least I don't remember being asked. I know of at least 3 people from my closest circle of friends who are in various immigration statuses (including one on F1) and got an auto loan from a dealership without a problem and with good rates. They have to ask for your immigration status on online applications because of the post-9/11 law changes. Edit to allow Dilip to retract his unjustified downvote: Chase and Wells Fargo have a reliable track of extending auto loans to non-permanent residents.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2e80e236e1538e0c874599110a6e5d2d
|
How Warren Buffett made his money
|
[
{
"docid": "6bfdc5b647b5f94ef5ffe18b4b174c9a",
"text": "\"Despite Buffett's nearly perfect consistent advice over the past few decades, they don't reflect his earliest days. His modern philosophy seemed to solidify in the 1970s. You can see that Buffett's earliest days grew faster, at 29.5 % for those partners willing to take on leverage with Buffett, than the last half century, at 19.7%. Not only is Buffett limited by size, as its quite difficult to squeeze one half trillion USD into sub-billion USD investments, but the economy thus market is far different than it was before the 1980s. He would have to acquire at least 500 billion USD companies outright, and there simply aren't that many available that satisfy all of his modern conditions. The market is much different now than it was when he first started at Graham-Newman because before the 1960s, the economy thus market would collapse and rebound about every few years. This sort of variance can actually help a value investor because a true value investor will abandon investments when valuations are high and go all in when valuations are low. The most extreme example was when he tried to as quietly as possible buy up an insurance company selling for something like a P/E of 1 during one of the collapses. These kinds of opportunities are seldom available anymore, not even during the 2009 collapse. As he became larger, those investments became off limits because it simply wasn't worth his time to find such a high returner if it's only a bare fraction of his wealth. Also, he started to deviate from Benjamin Graham's methods and started to incorporate Philip Fisher's. By the 1970s, his investment philosophy was more or less cemented. He tried to balance Graham's avarice for price with Fisher's for value. All of the commentary that special tax dodges or cheap financing are central to his returns are false. They contributed, but they are ancillary. As one can see by comparing the limited vs general partners, leverage helps enormously, but this is still a tangent. Buffett has undoubtedly built his wealth from the nature of his investments. The exact blueprint can be constructed by reading every word he has published and any quotes he has not disavowed. Simply, he buys the highest quality companies in terms of risk-adjusted growth at the best available prices. Quantitatively, it is a simple strategy to replicate. NFLX was selling very cheaply during the mid-2000s, WDC sells frequently at low valuations, up and coming retailers frequently sell at low valuations, etc. The key to Buffett's method is emotional control and removing the mental block that price equals value; price is cost, value is revenue, and that concept is the hardest for most to imbibe. Quoting from the first link: One sidelight here: it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately to people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of IQ or academic training. It's instant recognition, or it is nothing. and I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market. These Graham-and-Doddsville investors have successfully exploited gaps between price and value. When the price of a stock can be influenced by a \"\"herd\"\" on Wall Street with prices set at the margin by the most emotional person, or the greediest person, or the most depressed person, it is hard to argue that the market always prices rationally. In fact, market prices are frequently nonsensical. and finally Success in investing doesn’t correlate with I.Q. once you’re above the level of 25. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing. There is almost no information on any who has helped Buffett internally or even managed Berkshire's investments aside from Louis Simpson. It is unlikely that Buffett has allowed anyone to manage much of Berkshire's investments considering the consistent stream of commentary from him claiming that he nearly does nothing except read annual reports all day to the extent that he may have neglected his family to some degree and that listening to others will more likely hurt performance than help with the most striking example being his father's recommendation that he not open a hedge fund after retiring from Graham-Newman because he believed the market was topping, and he absolutely idolized his father.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fdbf339263b1065a53a294559a4d6dd",
"text": "\"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: \"\"Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "974603438efffb44dbeb13d6df665925",
"text": "I don’t know specifics of the situation but one possibility would be that Buffett may have billions in various assets etc companies he owns, stocks bonds, but if he doesn’t sell any of those stocks or cash in any of those bonds, then on paper he didn’t make any money that year because he’s letting the assets appreciate. I would say net income is the amount of income you claimed that year, so if you had sold some stock, the amount of money you sold them for would be your income. As opposed to net worth being “if they wanted to” if Buffett sold all of his stocks and assets, he would be able to get billions for it. So while he technically is worth billions, on his tax returns he doesn’t claim much income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e468f3dd2a7862c490cba7671c69bba3",
"text": "/u/Dexter0_0 - Additionally, nominal dollars should be adjusted for inflation using the [core PCE price deflator](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DPCCRG3A086NBEA). For instance, $5,000 in 1944 (when Mr. Buffett was 14), would feel like $48,000. /u/jaasx - the trailing off in the later years is more likely do to the difficulty of earning high rates of returns on large piles of money (i.e. diminishing marginal returns). [Here are Mr. Buffett's own words](https://valuebin.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/warren-buffett-on-investing-small-sums-of-money/), and can be seen in the stock price of Berkshire Hathaway (appreciating more slowly in recent decades than in the '70s & '80s).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e91b1f08ae696306311d1ca153bab4f0",
"text": "\"US federal tax law distinguishes many types of income. For most people, most of their income is \"\"earned income\"\", money you were paid to do a job. Another category of income is \"\"capital gains\"\", money you made from the sale of an asset. For a variety of reasons, capital gains tax rates are lower than earned income tax rates. (For example, it is common that much of the gain is not real profit but inflation. If you buy an asset for $10,000 and sell it for $15,000, you pay capital gains tax on the $5,000 profit. But what if prices in general since you bought the asset have gone up 50%? Then your entire profit is really inflation, you didn't actually make any money -- but you still have to pay a tax on the paper gain.) So if you make your money by investing in assets -- buying and selling at a profit -- you will pay lower taxes than if you made the same amount of money by receiving a salary from a job, or by running a business where you sell your time and expertise rather than an asset. But money made from assets -- capital gains -- is not tax free. It's just a lower tax. It MIGHT be that when combined with other deductions and tax credits this would result in you paying no taxes in a particular year. Maybe you could avoid paying taxes forever if you can take advantage of tax loopholes. But for most people, making money from capital gains could result in lower taxes per dollar of income than someone doing more ordinary work. Or it could result in higher taxes, if you factor in inflation, net present value of money, and so on. BTW Warren Buffet's \"\"secretary\"\" is not a typist. She apparently makes at least $200,000 a year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/#ab91f3718b8a. And side note: if Warren Buffet thinks he isn't paying enough in taxes, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more? The government has a web site where citizens can voluntarily pay additional taxes. In 2015 they received $3.9 million in such contributions. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3dbe23baa3731a9c553bf645a1ddd1d",
"text": "\"That's just his base salary for last year. Keep reading in the article: He also received $1.6 million worth of securit[ies]. Plus, he's probably earned plenty in salary, bonuses, and other compensation in previous years to more than keep up his lifestyle. He can also sell (relatively) small amounts of the stock he already owns to get millions in cash without raising an eyebrow. how are people able to spend more than what they make, without going into debt? Well, people can't spend more than they have without going into debt. Certainly money can be saved, won, inherited, whatever without being \"\"earned\"\". Other than that, debt is the only option. That said, MANY \"\"wealthy\"\" people will spend WAY more than they have by going into debt. This can be done through huge mortgages, personal loans using stock, real estate, or other assets as collateral, etc. I don't know about Bezos specifically, but it's not uncommon for \"\"wealthy\"\" people to live beyond their means - they just have more assets behind them to secure personal loans, or bankers are more willing to lend them unsecured money because of the large interest rates they can charge. Their assumption is presumably that the interest they'll pay on these loans is less than the earnings they'll get from the asset (e.g. stock, real estate). While it may be true in some cases, it can also go bad and cause you to lose everything.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e51cf7afa6aabe63143fd7875be00205",
"text": "The main thing you're missing is that while you bear all the costs of manipulating the market, you have no special ability to capture the profits yourself. You make money by buying low and selling high. But if you want to push the price up, you have to keep buying even though the price is getting high. So you are buying high. This gives everyone, including you, the opportunity to sell high and make money. But you will have no special ability to capture that -- others will see the price going up and will start selling within a tiny fraction of a second. You will have to keep buying all the shares they keep selling at the artificially inflated price. So as you keep trying to buy more and more to push the price up enough to make money, everyone else is selling their shares to you. You have to buy more and more shares at an inflated price as everyone else is selling while you are still buying. When you switch to selling, the price will drop instantly, since there's nobody to buy from you at the inflated price. The opportunity you created has already been taken -- by the very people you were trading with. Billions have been lost by people who thought this strategy would work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e9ebc57e4df203c6ab584cc9e5ec0ed",
"text": "\"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the \"\"underclass\"\" and the \"\"upperclass\"\". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5a2ac814e0f47b51a7f35f47f3c850d",
"text": "\"Warren Buffett pointed out that if you set 1 million monkeys to flipping coins, after ten flips, one monkey in about 1,000 (1,024) actually, would have a \"\"perfect\"\" track record of 10 heads. If you can double your money every three to five years (basically, the outer limit of what is humanly possible), you can turn $1,000 into $1 million in 30-50 years. But your chances of doing this are maybe those of that one in 1,000 monkeys. There are people that believe that if Warren Buffett were starting out today, \"\"today's version\"\" could not beat the historical version. One of the \"\"believers\"\" is Warren Buffett himself (if you read between the lines of his writings). What the promoters do is to use the benefit of hindsight to show that if someone had done such-and-such trades on such-and-such days, they would have turned a few thousand into a million in a few short years. That's \"\"easy\"\" in hindsight, but then challenge them to do it in real time!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ace2779c15685158929931d658536e7",
"text": "Shit article that displays the author has no farming idea of how Warren Buffet operates. The man has metrics that tell him when shares are too expensive. When this happens, he doesn't buy, and dividends can tend to accumulate when you have almost $500 billion in assets (which could just be 2 years of 5% dividend yields). If they are expensive, he won't buy, and money will accumulate. When there is a crash, he buys on the cheap. That how you get 23% of Year-on-year gains for 40 years. The fact that he is not buying does indicate that the market is overvalued, which is consistent with the fact that there is still a substantial amount of QE. The question is: what will happen as the Fed winds it down. They are aiming for a small decrease or leveling out of the stock market. If that happens, and the market stagnates for a couple of years, maybe the metrics will catch up and he will buy again without a crash happening.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c33a6811b667dc4c41322a763088ef4",
"text": "I could be wrong, but I doubt that Bernie started out with any intention of defrauding anyone, really. I suspect it began the first time he hit a quarter when his returns were lower than everyone else's, or at least not as high as he'd promised his investors they'd be, so he fudged the numbers and lied to get past the moment, thinking he'd just make up for it the next quarter. Only that never happened, and so the lie carried forward and maybe grew as things didn't improve as he expected. It only turned into a ponzi because he wasn't as successful at investing as he was telling his investors he was, and telling the truth would have meant the probability that he would have lost most of his clients as they went elsewhere. Bernie couldn't admit the truth, so he had to keep up the fiction by actually paying out returns that didn't exist, which required constantly finding new money to cover what he was paying out. The source of that money turned out to be new investors who were lured in by people already investing with Bernie who told them how great he was as a financial wizard, and they had the checks to prove it. I think this got so far out of hand, and it gradually dragged more and more people in because such things turn into black holes, swallowing up everything that gets close. Had the 2008 financial crisis not hit then Bernie might still be at it. The rapid downturns in the markets hit many of Bernie's investors with margin calls in other investments they held, so they requested redemptions from him to cover their calls, expecting that all of the money he'd convinced to leave with him really existed. When he realized he couldn't meet the flood of redemptions, that was when he 'fessed up and the bubble burst. Could he have succeeded by simple investing in Berkshire? Probably. But then how many people say that in hindsight about them or Amazon or Google, or any number of other stocks that turned out similarly? (grin) Taking people's money and parking it all in one stock doesn't make you a genius, and that's how Bernie wanted to be viewed. To accomplish that, he needed to find the opportunities nobody else saw and be the one to get there first. Unfortunately his personal crystal ball was wrong, and rather than taking his lumps by admitting it to his investors, his pride and ego led him down a path of deception that I'm sure he had every intention of making right if he could. The problem was, that moment never came. Keep in mind one thing: The $64 billion figure everyone cites isn't money that really existed in the first place. That number is what Bernie claimed his fund was worth, and it is not the amount he actually defrauded people out of. His actual cash intake was probably somewhere in the $20 billion range over that time. Everything else beyond that was nothing more than the fictionalized returns he was claiming to get for his clients. It's what they thought they had in the bank with him, rather than what was really there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f72096078666904daa338a9408f0f8e9",
"text": "Do you think Buffet's track record is a result of luck? Also it is tough to compare Singer and Buffet because their strategies are so different. Paul Singer's investing focuses on activism & distress, whereas Buffet is a value investor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23c0aec2630f46aec1894d85809f1124",
"text": "Yes, because we don't want to be China. It also helps stimulate an economy to have your largest portion get most of the wealth. Warren Buffett can only eat one meal at a time, live in one house at a time, and only has so much time in his day. If you give his yearly salary to 150 people that are right now unable to do any of those things, they will put that money to better use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db1ccbc57a778e7a93f06a6a95ab0dde",
"text": "\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"",
"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": "c7d15ce341a607d020f7c95b96e51e11",
"text": "\"my problem with your argument is its base falseness: \"\"During the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, Goldman was able to profit from the collapse in subprime mortgage bonds in the summer of 2007 by short-selling subprime mortgage-backed securities. Two Goldman traders, Michael Swenson and Josh Birnbaum, are credited with bearing responsibility for the firm's large profits during America's sub-prime mortgage crisis. The pair, members of Goldman's structured products group in New York, made a profit of $4 billion by \"\"betting\"\" on a collapse in the sub-prime market, and shorting mortgage-related securities.\"\" that is wikipedia, but they seem to know what is going on better than you do so...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c0e031045feb0f059b8f4d20233b164",
"text": "\"We just got in an argument in another thread, and I don't necessarily want to continue it, but was browsing your comments and saw this. I can say from personal experience (I have several high net worth clients) that this isn't true. The rich do the opposite of leave their money laying around. They invest it to make more money. They buy office buildings, fund new companies, buy up stocks, and drive investment in general. Someone has to do these things. Office buildings can't just be owned by \"\"the people\"\". Someone with a ton of money has to come along and fund them. For example, one of my friends knows Elon Musk (founder of Pay-Pal, Tesla Motors, Solar City, and Space X). He is *worth* $2 billion, but was living on other people's couches (including my friend's) after he sold Pay-Pal because he had just poured all of his cash into starting Tesla Motors. He was a billionaire without a penny to his name (well I'm sure he had a little cash lying around, but was essentially asset rich, cash broke). THAT is what most ultra rich people are like. They invest their money, they don't just horde it away in a savings account. The things people like Musk do create jobs and sometimes entire industries (or three entire industries in his case). I'm by no means arguing that this is right or wrong, but to say rich people just have money lying around is absurd. You don't get rich by saving money in the bank, you get rich by spending it. I'm in my early 20's, but already own multiple apartment buildings. I'm not rich yet and am in the same boat as Musk was. I have tons of assets, but almost no cash I can spend. However, you bet my efforts are creating jobs. I'm employing people to renovate and people to repair and maintain these buildings. I'm helping stop the bleeding in the real estate market, but, according to the narrative, I'm evil because my \"\"income\"\" is six figures.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6d5c71071ac1575285a384ea9355c22a
|
Can my employer limit my maximum 401k contribution amount (below the IRS limit)?
|
[
{
"docid": "94096094ba4f3eed98cfe4e4813b06dd",
"text": "Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f788ea32d519c84f38d354dad6476fe4",
"text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f6115e3ebc81863acbd278c75fd3cb9",
"text": "\"One description of what happened is at 401(k) Plan Fix-It Guide. The issue is the plan was \"\"Top Heavy,\"\" i.e. those making a high income were making disproportionately larger deposits than the lower paid employees. As the IRS article suggests, a nice matching deposit from the employer can eliminate the lower limit caused by the top heavy-ness. Searching on [top heavy 401(k)] will yield more details if you wish to research more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2872c54aa6d39f2befbdf243277e0511",
"text": "\"On thing the questioner should do is review the Summary Plan Description (SPD) for the 401(k) plan. This MAY have details on any plan imposed limits on salary deferrals. If the SPD does not have sufficient detail, the questioner should request a complete copy of current plan document and then review this with someone who knows how to read plan documents. The document for a 401(k) plan CAN specify a maximum percentage of compensation that a participant in the 401(k) plan can defer REGARDLESS of the maximum dollar deferral limit in Internal Revenue Code Section 402(g). For example, the document for a 401(k) plan can provide that participants can elect to defer any amount of their compensation (salary) BUT not to exceed ten percent (10%). Thus, someone whose salary is $50,000 per year will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $5,000. Someone making $150,000 will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $15,000. This is true regardless of the fact that the 2013 dollar limit on salary deferrals is $17,500. This is also true regardless of whether or not a participant may want to defer more than ten percent (10%) of compensation. This \"\"plan imposed\"\" limit on salary deferral contributions is permissible assuming it is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. This plan imposed limit is entirely separate from any other rules or restrictions on salary deferral amounts that might be as a result of things like the average deferral percentage test.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5e96c5b75d3d486354cd2566e3ed91b",
"text": "Companies are required BY THE IRS to try to get everybody to contribute minimal amounts to the 401K's. In the past, there were abuses and only the execs could contribute and the low paid workers were starving while the execs contributed huge amounts. On a year-by-year basis, if the low-paid employees don't contribute, the IRS punishes the high paid employees. Therefore, most employers provide a matching program to incentivize low-paid employees to contribute. This 9% limitation could happen in any year and it could have happened even before you got your pay raise, what matters is what the low-paid employees were doing at your company LAST YEAR.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "163a550e4375f59250e9fedb8d97204a",
"text": "My old company did this and set a limit at 13 percent which for me kept me well below putting the max into 401k. One had to make 120 - 130k to hit the irs max at 13 percent. So any explanation that the limit restricts high wage earner is BS. This limit restricts all low wage earners as their 13 percent max will be less than the max allowed. If a person making only 70k wants to put 17k into 401k fact is theycannot do this because they do not make enough the limit is discrimination against low-wage earners. Period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7786b43ee5c64e1979321bbcbb9d2380",
"text": "YMMV, but I don't accept non-answers like that from HR. Sometimes you need to escalate. Usually when I get this sort of thing, I go to my boss and he asks them the question in writing and they give him a better answer. (HR in most companies seem to be far more willing to give information to managers than employees.) Once we both had to go to our VP to get HR to properly listen to and answer the question. Policies like this which may have negative consequences (your manager could lose a good employee over this depending on how to close to retirement you are and how much you need to continue making that larger contribution) that are challenged by senior managment have a better chance of being resolved than when non-managment employees bring up the issue. Of course I havea boss I know will stand up for me and that could make a difference in how you appraoch the problem.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "068bed5880ce9e76d2f629508242671d",
"text": "You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d045c1946c36069542a4a087f4a83ed",
"text": "The maximum you can contribute to both the 403(b) and 401(k) is $18,000. Take the amount you already contributed and subtract it from $18,000. That's how much you have left to contribute before maxing out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f42a49658c1aab73dede18216e5f2532",
"text": "The deadline for contributing to a 401K is the last paycheck paid in December. That may not be the last pay period that ends in December. For example if the last pay period ends on Friday the 30th and you get paid on Thursday January 5th, that check is the first in the new year. The US government has rules regarding how quickly the money needs to be sent to the 401K trustee. It is possible that the money may get there after the first of the year, but the important date for you is the date of the last paycheck in December. The company form to set the contribution rate (it could also be on a website) will have a deadline to determine if the rate makes the next check or the one after that. The form will also have a maximum amount as a percentage of the check. Some could allow up to 100% but yours might not. So how much you can put in with the last paycheck or two is up to company policy and your pay rate. The company forms or website will describe how the company match works. If you were try and put as much as possible into a few checks, it is possible to hit the $18,000 yearly limit in just a small part of the year. In some companies that would mean that you could miss out on company match money, because that would never be more than x% of each check. For example if you were to put $3,000 per check with a base pay of $5,000 every two weeks and if the maximum company match was 5%. After 6 checks you would be done: you would have put in $18,000 and the company would have put in $250 x 6 or $1,500. If you were to spread the money over all 26 checks you would still put in $18,000 but the company would have put in $6,500.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9ee47ae4461c4ea9d518a5f41280c28",
"text": "\"The Forbes article IRS Announces 2014 Retirement Plan Contribution Limits For 401(k)s And More spells this out pretty clearly. For your wife - \"\"an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan and is married to someone who is covered, the deduction is phased out if the couple’s income is between $181,000 and $191,000.\"\" So, with your wife not covered by a 401(k), and your income below the stated limit, she can deduct the IRA contribution. When your income gets beyond that limit, she can make a non-deductible contribution and convert to Roth, if she wishes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b2ed6b049cd6fb9009865a6828bfd35",
"text": "If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ddf49c562d73412e291a692e7458249",
"text": "You can ask your employer for anything that you want. However, most employers, if they are contributing their own money into your HSA, or you are contributing to your own HSA through payroll deduction, only work with one HSA, which is much easier for them to manage. You are free to decline their HSA if you want. However, if they are kicking in free money into your HSA, I don't recommend that you decline it. Just pick the best option you have for investing. As for the money that you are contributing, if you don't want to put your own money into your employer's Aetna HSA, you can open up an HSA with any institution you like. You can even do this and still keep Aetna HSA to take advantage of the employer's contributions. However, your annual limit is still the total of all contributions to all HSA's in your name, whether you make them or your employer makes them. When deciding whether or not to use payroll deduction into the Aetna HSA or to go your own way, keep in mind that payroll deduction skips some payroll taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ee2984c54c112d43b0ba985c3b222f1",
"text": "\"Some 401k plans allow you to make \"\"supplemental post-tax contributions\"\". basically, once you hit the pre-tax contribution limit (17.5k$ in 2014), you are then allowed to contribute funds on a post-tax basis. Because of this timing, they are sometimes called \"\"spillover\"\" contributions. Usually, this option is advertised as a way of continuing to get company match even if you accidentally hit the pre-tax limit. But if you actually pay attention to your finances, it is instead a handy way to put away additional tax-advantaged money. That said, you would only want to use this option if you already maxed out your pre-tax and Roth options since you don't get the traditional tax break on contributions or the Roth tax break on the earnings. However, when you leave the company, you can transfer the post-tax money directly into a Roth IRA when you transfer the pre-tax money, match, and earnings into a traditional IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6456689474126d52bc57b6a42210921",
"text": "Please note that if you are self employed, then the profit sharing limit for both the SEP and Solo 401(k) is 20% of compensation, not 25%. There is no need for a SEP-IRA in this case. In addition to the 401(k) at work, you have a solo-401(k) for your consulting business. You can contribute $18,000 on the employee side across the two 401(k) plans however you wish. You can also contribute profit sharing up to 20% of compensation in your solo 401(k) plan. However, the profit sharing limit aggregates across all plans for your consulting business. If you max that out in your solo 401(k), then you cannot contribute to the SEP IRA. In other words, the solo 401(k) dominates the SEP IRA in terms of contributions and shares a limit on the profit-sharing contribution. If you have a solo 401(k), there is never a reason to have a SEP for the same company. Example reference: Can I Contribute to a solo 401(k) and SEP for the same company?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6affe05bdebd9125b9c8e5dc36920781",
"text": "\"if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). \"\"the timing is just different\"\" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8062146412f4d4ad57595551d6a4f910",
"text": "\"Unfortunately, not directly. For IRAs and HSAs, we have an annual maximum contribution limit. What you can do (which doesn't \"\"initially seed\"\" it) is to put the money aside in a savings account that you want to contribute to your HSA or IRA and then put it in the IRA or HSA when the timing is right for you. The key here though is that the contribution cannot exceed the maximum limit for the year. Another \"\"way around\"\" this (which really isn't because it just means that you'll have a new higher limit) is to become self employed, see this from the IRS about SEPs: Contribute as much as 25% of your net earnings from self-employment (not including contributions for yourself), up to $51,000 for 2013 ($52,000 for 2014). Still, none of these methods are pre-seeding an account, as the maximum contribution limit is never exceeded.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbe08a20012e4df28dec05a8a0bc8ad",
"text": "\"my taxable income was roughly $230,000 in 2012. Indeed it is relevant. The highest AGI limit for deductible IRA contributions is 112K. So no, IRA contribution will not help you reducing your tax bill this year. The deduction phases out starting from AGI limits of $10K in certain cases (for married filing separately), and phases out entirely for anyone at AGI of 112K (for 2012). The table linked describes the various deduction phase-out parameters depending on your filing status, and will probably be updated yearly by the IRS. However this is only relevant if your company provides a retirement plan, as Joe mentioned. If your company doesn't provide a retirement plan but your spouse's does - then the AGI phase-out limit is $178K. If neither you nor your spouse (if you have one) is covered - then there's no AGI limit, and you can indeed make an IRA contribution before April 15th that would be attributed to the previous year and reduce your tax bill. Note that \"\"provides\"\" means the plan is available, even if you don't participate in it, any time during the year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "433e9ba1a8d1803cd815171cb002b775",
"text": "At least on 25K. Here's the actual IRS publication, it's fairly complex and the limits depend on the types of organization you're donating to, and the types of property you're donating. Some donations may be limited to the maximum of 20% of your AGI. Bottom line - the maximum you can deduct in almost all circumstances would be 50% of the AGI (very few exceptions allow deducting up to 100% of your AGI). Worth mentioning that whatever you cannot deduct this year - you can roll over to the next year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce5540b10329f97641f466f7f7df5df",
"text": "If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a214f765ad8bf0850db57657119533be",
"text": "\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67b68ecf5c993aeea42bb178987d334d",
"text": "Yes, you are the proprietor of the business and your SSN is listed on Schedule C. The information on Schedule C is for your unincorporated business as a contractor; it is a sole proprietorship. You might choose to do this business under your own name e.g. Tim Taylor (getting paid with checks made out to Tim Taylor) or a modified name such as Tim the Tool Man Taylor (this is often referred to as DBA - Doing Business as), under a business name such as Tool Time etc. with business address being your home address or separate premises, and checking accounts to match etc. and all that is what the IRS wants to know about on Schedule C. Information about the company that paid you is not listed on Schedule C.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f52f07de19bd660c35ed874c32c94abf
|
Why do people buy new cars they can not afford?
|
[
{
"docid": "7d981886fcd3d12405655510fc4a88ff",
"text": "There are many reasons for buying new versus used vehicles. Price is not the only factor. This is an individual decision. Although interesting to examine from a macro perspective, each vehicle purchase is made by an individual, weighing many factors that vary in importance by that individual, based upon their specific needs and values. I have purchased both new and used cars, and I have weighted each of these factors as part of each decision (and the relative weightings have varied based upon my individual situation). Read Freakonomics to gain a better understanding of the reasons why you cannot find a good used car. The summary is the imbalance of knowledge between the buyer and seller, and the lack of trust. Although much of economics assumes perfect market information, margin (profit) comes from uncertainty, or an imbalance of knowledge. Buying a used car requires a certain amount of faith in people, and you cannot always trust the trading partner to be honest. Price - The price, or more precisely, the value proposition of the vehicle is a large concern for many of us (larger than we might prefer that it be). Selection - A buyer has the largest selection of vehicles when they shop for a new vehicle. Finding the color, features, and upgrades that you want on your vehicle can be much harder, even impossible, for the used buyer. And once you have found the exact vehicle you want, now you have to determine whether the vehicle has problems, and can be purchased at your price. Preference - A buyer may simply prefer to have a vehicle that looks new, smells new, is clean, and does not have all the imperfections that even a gently used vehicle would exhibit. This may include issues of pride, image, and status, where the buyer may have strong emotional or psychological needs to statisfy through ownership of a particular vehicle with particular features. Reviews - New vehicles have mountains of information available to buyers, who can read about safety and reliability ratings, learn about problems from the trade press, and even price shop and compare between brands and models. Contrasted with the minimal information available to used vehicle shoppers. Unbalanced Knowledge - The seller of a used car has much greater knowledge of the vehicle, and thus much greater power in the negotiation process. Buying a used car is going to cost you more money than the value of the car, unless the seller has poor knowledge of the market. And since many used cars are sold by dealers (who have often taken advantage of the less knowledgeable sellers in their transaction), you are unlikely to purchase the vehicle at a good price. Fear/Risk - Many people want transportation, and buying a used car comes with risk. And that risk includes both the direct cost of repairs, and the inconvenience of both the repair and the loss of work that accompanies problems. Knowing that the car has not been abused, that there are no hidden or lurking problems waiting to leave you stranded is valuable. Placing a price on the risk of a used car is hard, especially for those who only want a reliable vehicle to drive. Placing an estimate on the risk cost of a used car is one area where the seller has a distinct advantage. Warranties - New vehicles come with substantial warranties, and this is another aspect of the Fear/Risk point above. A new vehicle does not have unknown risk associated with the purchase, and also comes with peace of mind through a manufacturer warranty. You can purchase a used car warranty, but they are expensive, and often come with (different) problems. Finance Terms - A buyer can purchase a new vehicle with lower financing rate than a used vehicle. And you get nothing of value from the additional finance charges, so the difference between a new and used car also includes higher finance costs. Own versus Rent - You are assuming that people actually want to 'own' their cars. And I would suggest that people want to 'own' their car until it begins to present problems (repair and maintenance issues), and then they want a new vehicle to replace it. But renting or leasing a vehicle is an even more expensive, and less flexible means to obtain transportation. Expense Allocation - A vehicle is an expense. As the owner of a vehicle, you are willing to pay for that expense, to fill your need for transportation. Paying for the product as you use the product makes sense, and financing is one way to align the payment with the consumption of the product, and to pay for the expense of the vehicle as you enjoy the benefit of the vehicle. Capital Allocation - A buyer may need a vehicle (either to commute to work, school, doctor, or for work or business), but either lack the capital or be unwilling to commit the capital to the vehicle purchase. Vehicle financing is one area banks have been willing to lend, so buying a new vehicle may free capital to use to pay down other debts (credit cards, loans). The buyer may not have savings, but be able to obtain financing to solve that need. Remember, people need transportation. And they are willing to pay to fill their need. But they also have varying needs for all of the above factors, and each of those factors may offer value to different individuals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1c91b3a85c77daa1716961527a74130",
"text": "If everyone bought used cars, who would buy the new cars so that everyone else could buy them used? Rental car companies? Your rant expresses a misunderstanding of fundamental economics (as demand for used cars increases, so will prices) but economics is off-topic here, so let me explain why I bought a new car—that I am now in the 10th year of driving. When I bought the car I currently drive, I was single, I was working full-time, and I was going to school full-time. I bought a 2007 Toyota Corolla for about $16,500 cash out the door. I wanted a reliable car that was clean and attractive enough that I wouldn't be embarrassed in it if I took a girl out for dinner. I could have bought a much more expensive car, but I wanted to be real about myself and not give the wrong impression about my views on money. I've done all the maintenance, and the car is still very nice even after 105K miles. It will handle at least that many more miles barring any crashes. Could I have purchased a nice used car for less? Certainly, but because it was the last model year before a redesign, the dealer was clearly motivated to give me a good deal, so I didn't lose too much driving it off the lot. There are a lot of reasons why people buy new cars. I didn't want to look like a chump when out on a date. Real-estate agents often like to make a good impression as they are driving clients to see new homes. Some people can simply afford it and don't want to worry about what abuse a prior owner may have done. I don't feel defensive about my decision to buy a new car those years ago. The other car I've purchased in the last 10 years was a four year old used car, and it certainly does a good job for my wife who doesn't put too many miles on it. I will not rule out buying another new car in the future either. Some times the difference in price isn't significant enough that used is always the best choice.",
"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": "bd397206a1286febf43cd37d785666c5",
"text": "I had a 2000 Chevy Cavalier until late 2011. It worked well, but was very definitely at the end of its life. This was a low-end car, certainly, but I dispute your claim that cars last 20 - 25 years. Consumer Reports apparently says the average life expectancy of a new vehicle is around 8 years or 150,000 miles. When it came time to replace my Cavalier, I was significantly concerned about car safety and about the ability to handle Canadian winters (-40 temperatures, lots of snow). I chose a Subaru Forester as a good match for me. I could have bought one second-hand, but I wasn't willing to get one as old as five years. Car manufacturers constantly improve safety and features over that time period. The Forester is massively more capable of handling Canadian winters than the Cavalier was. If I was buying a Forester now, I'd want the EyeSight Driver Assist System which Subaru added a couple of years after my model year. The newer models score slightly higher in crash tests, too. That would limit me to 2014 or later models, and I'd be concerned someone selling a 2014 or 2015 knew something I didn't, knew they had purchased a lemon. I didn't need financing for my vehicle. On the other hand, I could have invested the money I saved, so if all I wanted was something to get me from point A to point B, my choice does not make much financial sense. But Canadian winters are brutal and car safety is massively important to me. I'm well aware that I paid considerably for this, and I'm comfortable with my decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de33827a3717ec57427af2b917af67cc",
"text": "The car you dream of might not be available in your local used car market. Or if it is, there might be something wrong with it. Here are some reasons that a person might want to buy a new car. Basically, if you have a picture in your mind of what your next car should look like, it is easier to shop for a new car: New cars are getting better. Here are some reasons that a person might want a newer generation car rather than an older generation car: Cars wear out. Here are some reasons a person shopping for a car might pass on a used car: In other words, there are good reasons to want a car that is either brand new, exactly two years old, or 3 - 5 years old. The brand new car might be better than the old car ever was.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5948efbabe7fdd53df8937b6699b9306",
"text": "Many reasons So in general you are paying more for peace of mind when you buy a new car. You expect everything to be working and if not you can take it back to the dealer to have them fix it for free.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fe9678a881addfc444414ac7706b947",
"text": "\"I would answer your question very simply: marketing works. \"\"If you don't have a new F-150, you are not a real man.\"\" for men, and \"\"If you don't have a new Honda Pilot your kids are in danger.\"\" for woman. One observation that reinforces this are the amount of new(er) Buicks on the road. Five years ago, they were pretty rare, now there are many. Their marketing strategy of \"\"We don't suck so much anymore\"\", seems to have worked. I don't get it. Last year, Consumer Reports reported that 84.5% of new cars are financed with an average payment of $457 over 65 months. I like your analysis, but lets say instead of following this path, Brad and Jenn, put $250 a month away in a cookie jar (to cover repairs and car replacement), and $664 (457*2-250) in a mutual fund. After doing this for 30 years, they will have 1.5 million. Driving a new car is precluding many from being wealthy. It is hard to jump aboard the \"\"income inequality\"\" bandwagon when you see with brand new iphones and cars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8244db9b6d7cb8ae986c5b82432cdec",
"text": "Most people today (and maybe regardless of era) are irrational and don't properly valuate many of their purchases, nor are they emotionally equipped to do the math properly, including projection into the future and applying probabilities. This compounds. Imagine that each individual is bound to others by a rubber band and can stretch in a certain direction. The more your neighbors stretch, the more you are both motivated to stretch and able to stretch. These are crudely analogous to consumer wants as well as allowed consumer debt. The banks are also within this network of rubber bands and much of their balance sheet is based on how far they've stretched on the aggregate of all connected bands (counting others debts as their credit because it will presumably be repaid), and every so often enough people's feet slip that a lot of rubber bands snap back. This is a bubble bursting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7caee9943b847a9c3f306418c0616758",
"text": "If you don't know how to fix your own car or have time to take car parts off of a car at a junk yard, the average amount of money per month you spend on repairing an old car will be greater than the amount of money you spend per month on a new car payment. This is because car repair shops are charging $85 per hour for labor for car repairs. Many parts that wear out on a car are difficult to replace because of their location on the engine. The classic example is piston rings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "833192fa2624bd4fca23f6210fe60398",
"text": "It is almost never going to be more economical to buy a new car versus repairing your current car. If you want a new car, that is justification enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b617a85ac8aafa6bed5a5d62f5b24ef",
"text": "\"I don't think you're missing anything on the math side as far as the payments. Likewise, it may seem everyone's driving a nicer car, but I'm going to predict that's based on area and a few other factors (for instance, my used car feels like riches in a college town). The behavior of why people would pay money, especially with high interest debt, for something is a little different. To explain the behavior behind people who purchase luxury cars: for some people, a car is a purchase that they value, similar to a person valuing the clothes they wear, the house they live in, or the equipment they buy and either borrowing or paying full price on an expensive car is worth it to them. We can call it a status symbol dismissively and criticize the financial waste without realizing, \"\"Wait, this is something they value\"\" like a rare book collector likes rare books (would a rare book collector pass on borrowing money if it meant a once-in-a-lifetime rare book purchase opportunity?). Have you ever felt, \"\"Wow this is cool/awesome/amazing\"\" with something? Basically, that's how many of them feel toward these cars. As much as I'd love to say they're only doing it for status (because I'm not a car person), that's actually somewhat de-humanizing and the more I've met people like this, the more I've realized this is their \"\"thing\"\" and to them it's totally worth it (even with all the debt). I have no doubt that there's a percentage of them who truly may be misled - maybe they don't realize the full cost of borrowing money or leasing. Still, for those who don't care the full cost, that's because it's their thing. We can all agree that it's still not wise to do financially (borrow on a luxury vehicle), and it won't change that some people will do it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06a6da7796e678cdfb951542d9ec1323",
"text": "\"How can people afford luxury cars? The same way they can afford anything: by finding it cheaply, saving for it, or adjusting their priorities. Company cars - either paid for by the company, or as part of a bonus/compensation/salary sacrifice scheme. I have friends who drive luxury cars, but they pay £200/month - not much more than, for example, finance on a used Honda People who have paid off their mortgage. There are people who spend a decade pouring every cent they have into a mortgage. Once paid off, they have £500-1500 a month \"\"spare\"\" People who have different priorities to you. I'm not bothered about big houses and holidays, but I love cars: I'd rather spend an extra £100/month on my car and have a holiday every 2 years, not every year People who only run one car in the family: if you're running two cars at £200/month, then discover one of you can work from home, you could have one £400 car and still be saving money on running costs. People who don't have (or want) children. Children are expensive, if they aren't part of your plans then you can save a lot of money for luxuries.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f78e13b5fa08fd74fc0c5257c84d2820",
"text": "\"Evaluating the total cost of operation and warranty period are indeed important considerations, but the article is specifically about buyers making an expensive car \"\"feel\"\" more affordable to their budget by having smaller payments over a longer term. >“Stretching out loan terms to secure a monthly payment they’re comfortable with is becoming buyers’ go-to way to get the cars they want, equipped the way they want them,” said Jessica Caldwell, Edmunds executive director of industry analysis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c70411aa1737ecee503bb98d9d7284d9",
"text": "+1 They are over priced to begin with - More specifically they are expensive to create exclusivity, which raises their value to people who value that kind of thing. Perhaps folks who buy those cars aren't buying them for value or quality or performance, but are buying them for the badge and the intangible factors. I frequently hear about rich people who earned their millions driving around in cars Consumer Reports rank highly, so it isn't because they are so much better than a mid priced car. A car for $140,000 is either equipped for the A-Team or is a status symbol. The status symbol notion is very expensive, but fades very quickly, hence the mighty depreciation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1913ec64a4d2a98e9c9970f4e2773f84",
"text": "Most people buy insurance because it is legally required to own a car or to have a mortgage. People want to own homes and to have personal transportation enough that they are willing to pay for required insurance costs. There are a lot of great explanations here as to why insurance is important and I don't want to detract from those at all. However, if we're being honest, most people are not sophisticated enough to measure and hedge their various financial risks. They just want to own an home and to drive a car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e24628ceca68d763bdf34b9735502da",
"text": "That's because the wealthy are paid for every engine stroke, and they know the car is almost out of fuel, and is heading for a cliff. So they are making plans to bail while collecting as many resources from the car's operation before it's inevitable crash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28d242f7c2ac47f3f855c8fc7f4ac7c1",
"text": "Nothing's generating a whole lot of interest right now. But more liquid and stable is better (cash or cash-like). But a related question: Why a new car? You can knock thousands of dollars off of the price of a comparable vehicle by buying one that's one or two years old. Your new vehicle loses thousands of dollars in value the moment it goes off the lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a791487dcfbe402a31155b4ede78ab68",
"text": "I believe one of the main reasons cars -- luxury or otherwise -- depreciate so quickly is that many auto accidents can cause serious engine/frame damage but are easily cosmetically repaired. If you smash up the car but get the body fixed, and you don't go through insurance, it will be indistinguishable from the same car that hasn't been in a crash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69a69d1b15ecc516ddce401f9c7c4c96",
"text": "A loan that does not begin with at least a 20% deposit and run through a term of no longer than 48 months is the world's way of telling you that you can't afford this vehicle. Consumer-driven cars are rapidly depreciating assets. Attenuating the loan to 70 months or longer means that payments will likely not keep up with depreciation, thus trapping the buyer in an upside down loan for the entire term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "794503653f3a60d390710785243bdcd4",
"text": "Their argument is that if prices start dropping, people won't buy stuff because they think the prices will keep going down? Aside from the fact that if prices go down, the cost to produce things also goes down, this is patently untrue. Look at gas. When prices are down, do people drive less because they think prices will keep going down?",
"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": "a688bd683b9434c0fed89aadcbbb9cb3",
"text": "\"The purpose of the emergency fund is to enable you to pay for unplanned necessary expenses without going into debt. You know that cars don't last forever and eventually need to be replaced. Ideally, you would have a \"\"car replacement fund\"\" which you contribute to a little every month. (Essentially, it is a car payment to yourself.) Then when it comes time to get a replacement car, you have money set aside for this purpose and know exactly how much you can spend. However, in your case it seems that you don't have enough money in your car replacement fund for the car that you want. There are a few different causes that might have led to this situation: Due to unforeseen circumstances, you need a replacement car before you thought you would need it. You find that your planning was not quite right, and you weren't saving as much as you need. You are trying to buy a more expensive car than you need. If a replacement car is a necessity, two of these are emergencies, one is not. If you don't have enough cash set aside for a car, it is certainly better to spend your emergency fund and pay cash than to borrow money to buy the car. Only you can decide if the car you are looking at is appropriate for you, or if you should be looking at a less expensive car. After you purchase the car, build your emergency fund back up first, then start saving for your next car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "773fc0ae59fbccb280948366988d9149",
"text": "When you purchase a mortgage, you have to prove the source of your down payment. Primarily this is so that the mortgage lender knows that there are no other outstanding liens against the property. If you show that some or part of your down payment was a gift, there is no fraud, but it may affect your qualification for the mortgage. Consult a lawyer in your area to determine if there is a legal way to gift the money that is not taxed. If all else fails you could just pay the tax. Also, you should research whether your gift is above the floor of taxable gifts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4f23ce5910e953720f911b9b3e81a44",
"text": "This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8054e17ef1903d33cda8029fdac2408f
|
Why do interest rates increase or decrease?
|
[
{
"docid": "5fc1b6f50dab7b6be9ad8ae72e29381d",
"text": "\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b45d931f0cfba1a028cae1a5bc8f4399",
"text": "Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "099a0afe44a9775482bc038a44439a33",
"text": "\"Beyond the yield/price relationship, a good intuitive way to understand it is just this: these people control a substantial amount of money that could be essentially loaned to governments. If they feel a particular policy is likely to lead to inflation or default, they may decide not to loan that country any more money. All else being equal, with a smaller supply of possible borrowers, the country will have to pay higher interest to fund a particular amount of debt. Furthermore they may loudly publicly announce that they will no longer lend to that country, in which case other participants may be persuaded that they too should no longer lend at the going rate. What's more, this is somewhat self-fulfilling: as rates go up, the country will spend more money servicing its debt, and will in fact become a worse risk. So I think the thing that gives them their \"\"vigilante\"\" nature is that governments worry they will round up a posse and things will run away. As far as actual incentives, I would welcome more information but I think the main bond vigilante case is that they are basically long on the country but want it to tighten up its policy so their existing holdings don't decline.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0057b7487fe621d293ba838505a1975",
"text": "Two kinds of lending going on. The first occurs when the Federal Reserve purchases government securities. This creates reserves at the Federal Reserve in another bank. The second kind of lending comes when this bank lends out the money. This is the multiplier effect. The reason for the excess reserves now is that banks are gun-shy and afraid to lend. Their money is safer at the Fed than with commercial and personal borrowers. When this changes (either by a recovery, or by the Fed penalizing banks for excess reserves, which it can do but hasn't) then we'll see inflation, and a consequential rise in prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cf9c7613a8b1d0fd44de8be4f8b61b0",
"text": "Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f81ea50476857bf3c3321076f0245b07",
"text": "Interest rates do generally affect house prices but other factors do too, especially the unemployment rate. However, everything else being equal, when interest rates drop, it makes the borrowing of money cheaper so tends to stimulate the economy and the housing market, increasing the demand for houses and generally causes house prices to increase (especially if the supply of new housing doesn't increase with the demand). When interest rates go up the opposite happens. Usually interest rates go down in order to stimulate a slowing economy and interest rates go up to slow down an overheated economy. Regarding your situation you are able to get a 30 year fixed rate at today’s interest rates (in Australia the longest fixed rate you can get is for 10 years and the rate is usually 1 or 2 percent higher than the standard variable rate. Most people here go for the variable rate or a fixed rate of between 1 to 3 years). This means that even if rates do go up in the future you won't be paying a higher rate, which is a positive for you. You are buying the house to live in so as long as you can keep making the repayments you should not be too worried if the price of the house drops sometime in the future, because if your house has dropped and you want to sell to buy another house to live in, then that house would have also dropped relative to yours (give or take). So your main worry is that rates will go up causing both house prices to fall and unemployment to rise, and you yourself losing your job and eventually your house. It is a risk, but what you need to consider is if you can manage that risk. Firstly, I believe rates won't be going up in the US for a number of years, and if and when they do start going up they will most probably start going up slowly. So you have some time on your side. Secondly, what can you do between now and when interest rates do start going up in a few years: Try to put more saving away to increase your safety net from 6 months to 12 months or more, or make extra repayments into your home loan so that you are ahead if things do go wrong. If you are worried that you could lose your job, what can you do to reduce your chances of losing your job or increasing your chances of getting a new job quickly if you do lose it? Improve your current skills, get new skills, become an invaluable employee, or look at possible opportunities to start your own business. Do your own research on the types of houses you are looking at buying, the more houses you look at the better prepared you will be when the right house at the right price comes along, and the less chance that you will be rushed into buying what might be an overpriced house. So to sum it up; do as much research as you can, have an understanding of what your risks are and how you are going to manage those risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ca0bc9fea0c7736b70d79881ee1dcb2",
"text": "Inequality feeds volatility. Too much money in too few hands. The money is hot. It is either hoarded or wagers are placed on rent seeking investments. Precious little is invested in plant or equipment. Wages are too low. We unlearned everything Keynes taught us from the Great Depression. That's why the down cycles are stronger and the up cycles are weaker. Low wages are why labor participation is falling. Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus, but he can't help us from our determined efforts to sabotage our own economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7b5e49eac72c5c8079a6d70519277a2",
"text": "how do these margins vary over time Depends on a lot of factors. The bank's financial health, bank's ongoing business activities, profits generated from it's other businesses. If it is new to mortgages, it mightn't take a bigger margin to grow its business. If it is in the business for long, it might not be ready to tweak it down. If the housing market is down, they might lower their margin's to make lending attractive. If their competitors are lowering their margins, the bank in question might also. Do they rise when the base rate rises, or fall, or are they uncorrelated? When rates rise(money is being sucked out to curb spending), large amount of spending decreases. So you can imagine margins will need to decrease to keep the mortgage lending at previous levels. Would economic growth drive them up or down? Economic growth might make them go up. Like in case 1, base rates are low -> people are spending(chances are inflation will be high) -> margins will be higher(but real value of money will be dependent on inflation) Is there any kind of empirical or theoretical basis to guess at their movement? Get a basic text book on macroeconomics, the rates and inflation portion will be there. How the rates influence the money supply and all. It will much more sense. But the answer will encompass a mixture of all conditions and not a single one in isolation. So there isn't a definitive answer. This might give you an idea of how it works. It is for variable mortgage but should be more or less near to what you desire.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f5af17b5140e42ea036fa485a4e5a7a",
"text": "I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83b89636b39e769baf9159b0300b05c7",
"text": "Interest rates are at historic lows. In my opinion they can only go up from here. With that in mind, it is best to lock in interest rates now. I would only take an adjustable rate if I expected my personal income to increase in excess of the increase in interest rates. I hold that the recent technology of fracking has driven down the price of energy. I also believe that this is a short term situation and energy prices will return, and have already begun to do so. With the price of energy going up, inflation will return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "233ea902448875e6343af9b6290c5305",
"text": "Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive, which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns. For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc. This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "298aceb6b086f2bd4e05a455c82ccb76",
"text": "When inflation is high or is rising generally interest rates will be raised to reduce people spending their money and slow down the rate of inflation. As interest rates rise people will be less willing to borrow money and more willing to keep their money earning a good interest rate in the bank. People will reduce their spending and invest less into alternative assets but instead put more into their bank savings. When inflation is too low and the economy is starting to slow down generally interest rates will be raised to encourage more spending to restart the economy again. As interest rates drop more will take their saving out of their bank accounts as is starts to earn very little in interest rate and more will be willing to borrow as it becomes cheaper to borrow. People will start spending more and investing their money outside of bank savings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0e8abc9b375caa02303b94bdb010151",
"text": "There do not appear to be any specific legal measures to prevent bankruptcies. In fact, they seems to be part of the means for which rates are raised, for the consequent aim of lowering inflation. See: The Budgetary Implications of Higher Federal Reserve Board Interest Rates by Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research. The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) is widely expected to start raising interest rates some time in 2015. The purpose of higher interest rates is to slow the economy and prevent inflation. This is done by reducing the rate of job creation and thereby reducing the ability of workers to achieve wage gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "174d0dde5a33952ccf7e1b619bfc6b38",
"text": "When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "020f958d49f7f77b5400dc0ac1d52896",
"text": "If money is more expensive (costs more to borrow) then fewer people will be able to qualify to make the payments for a particular size of mortgage. This reduces the number of potential buyers for property at that price. As sellers still want to sell, they will move their prices down to where more people can afford to buy. So rising interest rates create downward pressure on housing prices. But Toronto is the biggest city in Canada. I'd expect part of the high prices there is the location: lots of people want to be close to lots of activities, action, and opportunity. Unless something catastrophic happens, I don't see Toronto losing that advantage. If anything, it's going to get a tad warmer up there in the coming decades.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8db18dd45326ffa6fad1f55fc05a345a",
"text": "http://www.scottrade.com/online-brokerage/interest-margin-rates.html Rates fluctuate based upon the federal funds rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "055049ff07087e73c9e065bffc2b48a0",
"text": "\"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens: It almost looks random. A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates. They steadily climbed and steadily fell: All that's left is inflation: First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not. Economists call this type of phenomenon \"\"sticky pricing\"\", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation. The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways. This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s. Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating. Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing. As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept \"\"low and stable\"\": But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise? Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
37eece6d9f97a76a00c0aad01d116e81
|
Relative worth of investment versus spending for the economy
|
[
{
"docid": "52a78bae0d5dc569d24b41e2b75400c1",
"text": "I don't think that there's a specific number or index that gives you what you're looking for. I think the closest thing to it would be the velocity of money, which is a measure of how often money changes hands. Also, for what it's worth, I believe that this concept is controversial in some circles.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c605fb562aaa9d64793b16976ff99d90",
"text": "I believe you're looking for some sort of formula that will determine how changes in savings, investing, and spending will affect economic growth. If such a formula existed (and worked) then central planning would work since a couple of people could pull some levers to encourage more savings, or more investing, or more spending - depending on what was needed at that particular time. Unfortunately, no magic formula exists and so no person has enough knowledge to determine what the proper amount of savings, investing, or spending should be at a given time. I found this resource particular helpful in describing the interactions between savings, consumption, and investing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "47cac11e59bbb3ff9bcf0b72d8b7b8e8",
"text": "\"They may have planned on spending more money, but they haven't actually done so (just as I may plan to buy a new TV, but up until I've bought it I can change my mind). The ever increasing spending, and related debt, is just a symptom of our \"\"leaders\"\" failing to make choices and lead. If A is more important than B, then spend the money on A and forego B--don't buy both. And, if both are essential then raise the taxes to pay for them. All we've seen for the last 40 years is congress buying A, and B, and then throwing in C for good measure but never figuring out how to pay for them. They simply pass the debts on to future generations and that's what has to stop. If we need something now, we should pay for it now. We should not be signing away our children's futures expecting them to pay for things because we want them now.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c251807d8c6d550addd1d726eab1f6d",
"text": ">In the economic sense, investments really has nothing to do with capital or business investments then does it? Congratulations, you just figured out why monetarists and Keynesians are wrong. What actually matters is the quality of the investments that the money is making. An excess of currency won't create growth if the currency is invested in a derivative contract, since this is a zero-growth investment. A shortfall in currency won't always kill the economy, if rational investments are made (2nd half of the 19th century in the United States). On the other hand, [infrastructure](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/060320a/forum.cfm) generally offers a much higher return on invested capital than the private market. So you see China's economy growing quickly for several decades due to investing in the right class of assets. This is the same thing the United States did to become an economic superpower: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-American-school-of-economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08aaa115b58a78d19ceb90a601d1f1e4",
"text": "i disagree. if a country has sovereign currency, then there is no squandering. where does that money come from in the first place? govt creates it, and spends it into the economy through deficit spending. And govt gets a service or product in return from that spending. Govt deficit spending = private sector savings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "289114ae19a926021555a66ce583f095",
"text": "Well technically debt is commonly measured as a % of GDP in order to give it a sense of scale. How else would you compare US debt vs Greek debt. You can also do it as a % of assets I guess, but that's much harder to measure",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e664a761746258face4854e4a22a570",
"text": "\"not trying to be insulting, but i would contend your response should be the one dissected in econ 101. why? because yours is the theory du jour among business interests and economic commentators in the media. the fact is that this brand of \"\"free market\"\" capitalism rests on a series of impractical assumptions. first is that investors are perfectly rationale allocators of capital. from this, that excess capital is invested - at all, let alone in a productive fashion. next, that taxation (presumably what is considered \"\"high\"\") has caused unproductive investing practices, when in fact the inverse is true - decreases in effective income tax rates (personal and corporate) combined with the reduction of passive taxes (like the estate tax) have resulted in the incentive for investors to sit on their capital and do nothing to return it to the system. finally, and perhaps most egregiously, that investing profits back into expansion and worker compensation is misallocation of resources. the entire article serves to demonstrate that this line of thinking is a self defeating concept. giving precedence to the relatively elite investor class ensures that capital is allocated according to their whims, and often times that simply means into their bank accounts. this starves the system. so i don't expect to change your mind, but i would like others to know that what you are saying is widely debunked, chicago school nonsense that gets a lot of air time from self serving interests across popular media. a few hours of unbiased research will make this evident. it is somewhat ironic that the theory has limited standing academically, as it works only in an academic/theoretical setting.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ec54a8c54ec30ce5f44f84bf3f18a2a",
"text": "none of which give a good return if the underlying economy is shit. the underlying economy will be shit if there hasn't been sufficient investment in more productive endeavors. if the underlying economy hasn't been sufficiently capitalized, that will present juicy returns to investors. it's a complete substance-less threat that if we fail to continue to coddle the rentiers, the economy will collapse because they'll do X with their money (X being something other than maximizing return)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3d376fb4030d199334c23b803e8af1b",
"text": "\"Past work, while certainly an important component, is not a *necessary* component. As otherwiseyep stated before, it is credibility that is important. A farmer can promise a million bushels, and yes, it certainly could be fantasy; but his \"\"fantastical\"\" promise nevertheless has value if the other parties involved believes his promise. Actual production has little relevance when it comes to worth, at least until someone actually tries to collect on said promises. This would create problems in a small, closed world, where the breaking of a promise would have huge ramifications on the economy as a whole; but, in the real world, broken promises are countered by the their naturally occurring opposite: under-valued promises. The upset of this balance is, in fact, the essence of every financial crisis/boom. The vastness of the world economy means that money can never be truly representative of actual production. Regarding the complaints about the high cost of higher education; the complaints are that the price of a degree is not indicative of its true worth. The widespread availability of a college education is one of the main factors as to why people believe college educations are too expensive. If there was an actually perceived limited supply of seats at schools, as you suggest, then the general public would value the seats more, and maybe wouldn't complain about the costs as much.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1df8591be32d4babf6b7a50426ebacda",
"text": "Yes - it's called the rate of inflation. The rate of return over the rate of inflation is called the real rate of return. So if a currency experiences a 2% rate of inflation, and your investment makes a 3% rate of return, your real rate of return is only 1%. One problem is that inflation is always backwards-looking, while investment returns are always forward-looking. There are ways to calculate an expected rate of inflation from foreign exchange futures and other market instruments, though. That said, when comparing investments, typically all investments are in the same currency, so the effect of inflation is the same, and inflation makes no difference in a comparative analysis. When comparing investments in different currencies, then the rate of inflation may become important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "233ea902448875e6343af9b6290c5305",
"text": "Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive, which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns. For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc. This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28687e18e0805bf29f2e7323cf9bc628",
"text": "More exactly, it would be beneficial if government spent on something that increases economic productivity. The problem is, how can the government determine what is a good investment vs a bad investment? Even restricted only to building infrastructure, how does it know which bridges are good and which are [bad](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge)? Government has no good method of determining this. They make political, not economic decisions and listen to whoever lobbies them the best. This idea of economic calculation is how [Mises' predicted that socialism/communism would utterly fail](http://mises.org/humanaction/chap26sec1.asp).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bf91e63d694815d6891b3f80d18ba29",
"text": "What I think Warren means is that people like him are really good at making money and setting things up to continue being rich. In Warren's case he's very good at evaluating businesses and if they would be good investments. In the micro this isn't really a problem. Instead the problem is on the macro-level. When enough potential market participants (i.e. people / businesses) aren't enabled to participate in the economy in the same way. This feeds into a growing wealth inequality. The people who have the resources to continue playing the game can also continue with more chances. It's a Pareto Principle situation. No opportunity to play, little to improve, and a continually disadvantaged population. Add time into the soup. Rich get richer, the poor poorer, the gap widens more. Add inflationary mechanics, and the fact that being poor is more expensive. Add debt and an inability to purchase for long term solutions. You get a situation where 99% of the money is cycling around in the top 1% of players. The other 99% of potential market participants are poorly utilized up to the point where their wealth is something they have trouble spending for things like...healthcare. The idea of poorly utilized market participants is key. A growing economy wants more bandwidth. It wants more agents or market participants contributing to the flow. Get rich enough and you'll find you can't spend more than the interest on investments. On the contrary if you don't have very much money, it's easy as hell to spend it quickly! It's straightforward to say that if more of the global population weren't in debt, if they weren't in a state where they can't participate in economic growth, then maybe the economic growth of human society wouldn't be so bottle-necked.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a83c8e47219effc49996c8f7f32aec0b",
"text": "I wrote about the dynamic of why either of a lower or higher exchange rate would be good for economies in Would dropping the value of its currency be good for an economy? A strong currency allows consumers to import goods cheaply from the rest of the world. A weak currency allows producers to export goods cheaply to the rest of the world. People are both consumers and producers. Clearly, there have to be trade-offs. Strong or weak mean relative to Purchasing Power Parity (i.e. you can buy more or less of an equivalent good with the same money). Governments worrying about unemployment will try and push their currencies weaker relative to others, no matter the cost. There will be an inflationary impact (imported inputs cost more as a currency weakens) but a country running a major surplus (like China) can afford to subsidise these costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fd26276e78483ab169d223d20198f1b",
"text": "Employment, output and inflation are your feedback. Too little spending manifests as a an output gap with elevated unemployment and low inflation. Too much spending shows up as full employment, full capacity and rising inflation as additional dollars just bid up prices. Get it right and you have full employment with price stability. So are we there yet? Well, it's not a static point we reach and cross but a dynamic balance in every period based on what's going on in the non-government sectors. Lately we've been leaning towards too little and the result is a tepid, stagnant recovery dragging on for years with elevated unemployment, weak growth and a persistant [output gap](http://lostoutputclock.com/).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "434cc73ef6ba8ef7f1a730b07c191a35",
"text": "Nobody is suggesting that China hasn't had massive amounts of growth. However, even a relatively small discrepancy (for instance, 6.9% against 6.5%, similar to what appears in the article) can compound in to a huge difference over years. If that relatively minute 0.4% spread were misreported since the 90s, that produces output gap of about USD $2 trillion (roughly 10% of the GDP). It's hard to guess the magnitude of the inaccuracies, though some estimates exist, but I'd be willing to bet that the government never *under* reports growth. Why do inflated assets matter? Because they lead to unrealizable capital gains on the balance sheet that gets counted in GDP, potentially producing reporting inaccuracies. I agree with you that infrastructure projects drive a lot of China's growth, but again, the other drivers notwithstanding, there is a material difference between 6.5% and 6.9%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60dca45e6eee398c38e1b7d58f66989a",
"text": "\"I think anyone will agree that the \"\"optimal\"\" rate of taxation is the goal but what is optimal? It depends on your scoring metrics, the optimal solution to one problem might not be the optimal solution for another. You bring up the Feds but that confounds the issue because now we have to talk about monetary policy, taxation is fiscal policy In general lowering taxes increases capital investment regardless of the investment rate, the firm has more money they are going to spend it somewhere\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
15fa33fb3f43a705b1de60973e3593bd
|
Which % of the global economy is considered “emerging”?
|
[
{
"docid": "6fe7136d0ad975b808acb88e334ef023",
"text": "The company that runs the fund (Vanguard) on their website has the information on the general breakdown of their investments of that fund. They tell you that as of July 31st 2016 it is 8.7% emerging markets. They even specifically list the 7000+ companies they have purchased stocks in. Of course the actual investment and percentages could [change every day]. Vanguard may publish on this Site, in the fund's holdings on the webpages, a detailed list of the securities (aggregated by issuer for money market funds) held in a Vanguard fund (portfolio holdings) as of the most recent calendar-quarter-end, 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, except for Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (60 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter), Vanguard index funds (15 calendar days after the end of the month), and Vanguard Money Market Funds (within five [5] business days after the last business day of the preceding month). Except with respect to Vanguard Money Market Funds, Vanguard may exclude any portion of these portfolio holdings from publication on this Site when deemed in the best interest of the fund.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "23c2964324abb7d0c9853444e043d7a3",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-policy-development/u-s-is-a-danger-to-the-world-warns-top-economist-idUSKCN1C41XD) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > BARCELONA - A global push to end poverty and hunger, and combat climate change by 2030 is at risk from American &quot;Militarism&quot;, powerful business interests and the actions of President Donald Trump, said leading U.S. economist and U.N. special adviser Jeffrey Sachs. > &quot;More and more I see that while the kind of technical solutions I work on are very important ... the real obstacles that we are fighting every day are the political obstacles, the headwinds of powerful interests, bad ways of doing things,&quot; he added. > Sachs, who has helped some 100 countries shape their policies, said he had expected to focus on international development issues &quot;Because the U.S. would more or less take care of itself&quot; - but that no longer applies to his home nation. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73l97c/us_is_a_danger_to_the_world_warns_top_economist/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~219995 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*: **U.S.**^#1 **Sachs**^#2 **More**^#3 **United**^#4 **going**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f37f44c33a386f41e8aa32c706e65f5",
"text": "Think of GDP growth as a weighted average of all agents in the country that produce goods and services, some grow, some retract, we get an average of ~1.5%. While the S&P 500 is just the weighted average of the 500 largest **public** companies, and while some shrink, most are growing. They are responsible for a portion of GDP growth, but not all. Even the Wilshire 5000, which has every public company listed will show growth larger than GDP because of the nature of the companies listed. Lastly, as time goes to infinity, all companies will grow at the rate of GDP growth, otherwise they'll consume every other company until it is the only one left. Essentially, exchanges only look at a handful of companies and their performance. GDP looks at all companies in the U$.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75c48506b317dc3518cb079bdcf946b9",
"text": "\"GDP being a measurement for an economy's growth and with the stock market being driven (mostly) by company profits you would expect a tight correlation between GDP growth and stock market performance. After all, a growing economy should lead to a corresponding increase in profit right? But the stock market is heavily influenced by investor mentality; irrational exuberant buying and panic selling make the stock market far more volatile than GDP ever can be. Just look at the 2001 bubble and 2008 panic sell-off for famous examples. I feel emerging markets are particularly prone to overly optimistic buying to \"\"get in\"\" on the GDP growth followed by overly pessimistic selling when politics get unfavorable. Also keep in mind that GDP measurements are all done after the fact, the growth that is reported has already happened. The stock market might have already expected the reported growth and priced it in. A final point: governments and companies in emerging markets have a reputation (sometimes deserved) of poor governance, think corruption, nepotism etc. So even if the economy grows substantially investors might not believe they can profit from the growth. P.S. What do you base the \"\"no great increase\"\" on? Emerging markets have had a rough decade but that index would have still returned 9% annually if you held it since 2001.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0389ef13c4efdfebeb2cfe9c55344eb3",
"text": "\"This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment. If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as *looong* as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets. Heck, if you can take on even *more* debt at 3%, you should still do the same. Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, *but*, doing so is effectively a form of \"\"loan\"\" to yourself. We call the \"\"interest\"\" on that loan \"\"inflation\"\", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart). So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%. But someone has to *take* that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of. There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much. If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially \"\"invested\"\" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86624c3d1509fa6dba40561c99974129",
"text": "\"What a great explanation! I was familiar with many of the concepts, but I've learnt quite a lot. Do you happen to know any sources for further reading that are just as understandable to a non-economist? And/Or would you mind continuing / expanding this into whichever direction you find worth exploring? I would love to see this explanation \"\"connected\"\" to the debt crisis and how/why the US and europe seem to be in different situations there. Maybe that would be too complex to explain in more detail using your model, but maybe it is possible..?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "636c82034cad8c30b43c9f13cad4e238",
"text": "\"The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to \"\"private\"\" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, \"\"gross,\"\" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the \"\"net\"\" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the \"\"just under 3% a year\"\" GDP growth during that time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bf3487c2e9cffeaedd48bd6196fafaa",
"text": "\"China's regulators, it seems, are on the attack. Guo Shuqing, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, announced recently that he'd resign if he wasn't able to discipline the banking system. Under his leadership, the CBRC is stepping up scrutiny of the role of trust companies and other financial institutions in helping China's banks circumvent lending restrictions. The People's Bank of China has also been on the offensive. It has recently raised the cost of liquidity, attacked riskier funding structures among smaller banks, and discontinued a program that effectively monetized one-fifth of last year's increase in lending. Are the regulators finally getting serious about reining in credit creation? The answer is an easy one: Yes if they're willing to allow economic growth to slow substantially, probably to 3 percent or less, and no if they aren't. inRead invented by Teads This is because there's a big difference between China's sustainable growth rate, based on rising demand driven by household consumption and productive investment, and its actual GDP growth rate, which is boosted by massive lending to fund investment projects that are driven by the need to generate economic activity and employment. Economists find it very difficult to formally acknowledge the difference between the two rates, and many don't even seem to recognize that it exists. Yet this only shows how confused economists are about gross domestic product more generally. The confusion arises because a country's GDP is not a measure of the value of goods and services it creates but rather a measure of economic activity. In a market economy, investment must create enough additional productive capacity to justify the expenditure. If it doesn't, it must be written down to its true economic value. This is why GDP is a reasonable proxy in a market economy for the value of goods and services produced. But in a command economy, investment can be driven by factors other than the need to increase productivity, such as boosting employment or local tax revenue. What's more, loss-making investments can be carried for decades before they're amortized, and insolvency can be ignored. This means that GDP growth can overstate value creation for decades. That's what has happened in China. In the first quarter of 2017, China added debt equal to more than 40 percentage points of GDP -- an amount that has been growing year after year. In 2011, the World Economic Forum predicted that China's debt would increase by a worrying $20 trillion by 2020. By 2016, it had already increased by $22 trillion, according to the most conservative estimates, and at current rates it will increase by as much as $50 trillion by 2020. These numbers probably understate the reality. If all this debt hasn't boosted China's GDP growth to substantially more than its potential growth rate, then what was the point? And why has it proven so difficult for the government to rein it in? It has promised to do so since 2012, yet credit growth has only accelerated, reaching some of the highest levels ever seen for a developing country. The answer is that credit creation had to accelerate to boost GDP growth above the growth rate of productive capacity. Much, if not most, of China's 6.5 percent GDP growth is simply an artificial boost in economic activity with no commensurate increase in the capacity to create goods and services. It must be fully reversed once credit stops growing. To make matters worse, if high debt levels generate financial distress costs for the economy -- as already seems to be happening -- the amount that must be reversed will substantially exceed the original boost. Once credit is under control, China will have lower but healthier GDP growth rates. If the economy rebalances, most Chinese might not even notice: It would require that household income -- which has grown much more slowly than GDP for nearly three decades -- now grow faster, so that the sharp slowdown in economic growth won't be matched by an equivalent slowdown in wage growth. Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more. Share the View Enter your email Sign Up But to manage this rebalancing requires substantial transfers of wealth from local governments to ordinary households to boost consumption. This is why China hasn't been able to control credit growth in the past. The central government has had to fight off provincial \"\"vested interests,\"\" who oppose any substantial transfer of wealth. Without these transfers, slower GDP growth would mean higher unemployment. Whether regulators can succeed in reining in credit creation this time is ultimately a political question, and depends on the central government's ability to force through necessary reforms. Until then, as long as China has the debt capacity, GDP growth rates will remain high. But to see that as healthy is to miss the point completely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf5cff032b3c606fd579c65de622fc8c",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/july/global-energy-investment-fell-for-a-second-year-in-2016-as-oil-and-gas-spending-c.html) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Global energy investment fell by 12% in 2016, the second consecutive year of decline, as increased spending on energy efficiency and electricity networks was more than offset by a continued drop in upstream oil and gas spending, according to the International Energy Agency&#039;s annual World Energy Investment report. > Global energy investment amounted to USD 1.7 trillion in 2016, or 2.2% of global GDP. For the first time, spending on the electricity sector around the world exceeded the combined spending on oil, gas and coal supply. > The United States saw a sharp decline in oil and gas investment, and accounted for 16% of global spending. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6nqnvn/july_global_energy_investment_fell_for_a/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~168423 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **energy**^#1 **investment**^#2 **spender**^#3 **year**^#4 **Global**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b408999d23ce9855cfcbed05165d429b",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/chinas-debt-surpasses-300-percent-of-gdp-iif-says-raising-doubts-over-yellens-crisis-remarks.html) reduced by 69%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Casrten Brzeski, senior economist at ING said that &quot;High debt levels mean that the debt crisis has not been solved, yet. Neither in the US, nor in the Eurozone. Increasing debt levels in Asia and other emerging market economies also show that a structural change has not yet taken place.\"\" > According to the IIF, despite the fact that debt levels have slowed down in mature economies, emerging market debt rose 5 percentage points from a year ago. > &quot;The household debt-to-GDP ratio hit an all-time high of over 45 percent in the first quarter of 2017 -well above the Emerging Market average of around 35 percent. In addition, our estimates based on monthly data on total social financing suggest that China&#039;s total debt surpassed 304 percent of GDP as of May 2017,&quot; the IIF noted. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6p6vug/chinas_debt_surpasses_300_percent_of_gdp_iif_says/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~174153 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*: **debt**^#1 **Bank**^#2 **market**^#3 **trillion**^#4 **levels**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f281ca5432ea04eed56f4a9c836e0d55",
"text": "The article speaks about how pieces of the pie have shrunk. I'm also curious to know if the pie's growth has maintained or shrunk as well. All the women starting full time jobs from the 60's would have to have some impact on the overall salaries. That's inevitable. And how have the demographics changed in the top 5%? Could a divergence there justify a portion of the diverging rates?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5994a1b5367cc7a98b0000bd13590441",
"text": "This is an interesting read. I'd be interested in hearing what percentage of people making the high cutoff before, and then going above that after was. That is, how many low wage workers were converted to higher wage workers, and what affect that had on the resulting statistics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c96f11b2c154045edf20bad8d9f979a4",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://about.bnef.com/blog/electric-vehicles-accelerate-54-new-car-sales-2040/) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** > London and New York, 6 July 2017 - Electric vehicles will make up the majority of new car sales worldwide by 2040, and account for 33% of all the light-duty vehicles on the road, according to new research published today. > The team now estimates that EVs will account for 54% of all new light-duty vehicle sales globally by 2040, not the 35% share it forecast previously. > BNEF sees them accounting for nearly 67% of new car sales in Europe by 2040, and for 58% in of sales in the U.S. and 51% in China by the same date. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6p1zel/electric_vehicles_to_accelerate_to_54_of_new_car/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~173744 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*: **New**^#1 **vehicle**^#2 **BNEF**^#3 **Energy**^#4 **Bloomberg**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f8b1bd0693424694a36d5d0193b1a1f",
"text": "This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit. - [/r/ConcentrationOfWealth] [Peak Inequality: The .01% And The Impoverishment Of Society • /r/economy](http://np.reddit.com/r/ConcentrationOfWealth/comments/2ehfse/peak_inequality_the_01_and_the_impoverishment_of/) *^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? [^Message ^me ^here.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmeta_bot_mailbag)*",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dd3cd0bb253c7094de0c6f953b1e969",
"text": "I find it somewhat doubtful that the US economy will grow by less than 16 billion in the next 33 years. 33 years ago the US had a GDP of just 4 Trillion. Yes i know that growth has slowed down considerably but I just don't see how the US economy will fail to double in such a long period of time. Hell from 2015 to 2016 the US economy grew 530 billion dollars to 18.57 Trillion dollars. Assuming Growth stopped and we simply increased our GDP by that much every year we'd increase by that much in 33 years. But that's unlikely to happen over the long period and since growth is compounding I see us easily staying ahead of India. China only gets past us on PPP seeing as their nominal economy was practically flat last year due to a slump in the renimbi.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efedb6a2ada64387f86ac32342288419",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/u-s-slips-in-global-competitiveness-ranking-as-china-shoots-up) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The U.S. fell out of the top three in a global competitiveness ranking, as executives&#039; perception of the world&#039;s biggest economy deteriorated after Donald Trump&#039;s election. > The U.S. slipped one spot to fourth in an annual ranking published by the IMD World Competitiveness Center, a research group at IMD business school in Switzerland. > The U.S. drop largely reflects survey results, as global executives questioned by IMD ranked the country lower in categories including government and business efficiency. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6epyee/us_slips_in_global_competitiveness_ranking_as/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~134240 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **ranks**^#1 **country**^#2 **U.S.**^#3 **economy**^#4 **World**^#5\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cf02087a4d9472bd076f4d62c5c62f6d
|
Recommended finance & economy book/blog for a Software Engineer?
|
[
{
"docid": "18fdf9e3dfc67a60abdd1702ae7f00b6",
"text": "Start at Investopedia. Get basic clarification on all financial terms and in some cases in detail. But get a book. One recommendation would be Hull. It is a basic book, but quite informative. Likewise you can get loads of material targeted at programmers. Wilmott's Forum is a fine place to find coders as well as finance guys.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa5137efacc233a210ef420c50b9f283",
"text": "Another good economic comment blog is Naked Capitalism.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "691d30be5ea3ac2d0d01dfe13974d43d",
"text": "For economics I recommend mises or these videos to get you started. For daily critical analysis of financial markets, keynesian government policies, and other interesting reading I recommend zerohedge. I've learned more about financial markets and government regulations by reading the comments section on zerohedge articles than anywhere else on the internet. The comment section is very raw (i.e. lots of fucking cursing) but there are some jewels of information in there. For daily critical thinking I suggest lewrockwell.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "397220883f559435621d173d3f45c35c",
"text": "You're asking for a LOT. I mean, entire lives and volumes upon volumes of information is out there. I'd recommend Benjamin Graham for finance concepts (might be a little bit dry...), *A Random Walk Down Wall Street,* by Burton Malkiel and *A Concise Guide to Macro Economics* by David Moss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3cc4d75dede621bfa13fae275f4db50",
"text": "We are mostly .NET C#. I'm not trying to sound like a big shot but generally, to work in finance as a software engineer, you have to be good at what you do. More specifically, I work on developing the inside tools for our traders and mutual/hedge fund managers to manage the business. I work on benchmark, asset, and valuation analysis tools. Technologies I use on a daily basis are C#, SQL, JavaScript, JQuery, MVVM (and other design patterns), HTML5, and more specialized unit testing tools. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask or pm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f4270d67a6601b909ed315a269981d3",
"text": "Hey thank you so much for the reply! So the interview is a late stage one - I've gotten past the concepts and honestly the role *shouldn't* be that heavy on the finance side ...what I'm looking at now is actually having to mock up a financial forecast in a real estate development scenario. I'm getting the case in advance and have to prepare a presentation. So right now, I really need the ABCs of forecasting specifically. But I'm definitely checking out your recommendations!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80a96267a5a8e0c55503489088c27d01",
"text": "What is the best way to get into knowledge about the financial world? I have been reading some guides on investopedia, discussing the financial world with others, and looking at some tutorial videos. Are there any good books/websites that are for a newcomer to the financial world? Any help would be greatly appreciated",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75c3db5159a5d2647df8a07d7a2538cc",
"text": "Hi guys, could I get advice on possibly entering finance myself? I have a BSE in computer engineering, and a Ph.D. in nanoscience and microsystems, and I do computational aeroscience and biology now. Needless to say, I'm an applied physics and computer nerd. I love currency and commodities trading and instruments, though, I'm totally fascinated by it and I'm a *mean* coder and scientist. Can I get into finance?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad544a91ad384dd2c20760e218163f88",
"text": "I was wondering if someone could recommend a textbook I'm taking a course right now in foundations of finance and we're dealing with subjects such as utility functions, risk aversion, prudence, temperance, Arrow-Debreau securities, portfolio theory, and more I'm finding the textbook we're using (Intermediate Finance, Danthine & Donaldson) a bit hard to understand",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf879d817b1a282b62a24a5bf1dc6ed0",
"text": "\"I'm another programmer, I guess we all just like complicated things, or got here via stackoverflow. Obligatory tedious but accurate point: Investing is not personal finance, in fact it's maybe one of the less important parts of it. See this answer: Where to start with personal finance? Obligatory warning for software developer type minds: getting into investing because it's complicated and therefore fun is a really awful idea from a financial perspective. Or see behavioral finance research on how analytical/professional/creative type people are often terrible at investing, while even-tempered practical people are better. The thing with investing is that inaction is better than action, tried and true is better than creative, and simple is better than complicated. So if you're like me and many programmers and like creative, complicated action - not good for the wallet. You've been warned. That said. :-) Stuff I read In general I hate reading too much financial information because I think it makes me take ill-advised actions. The actions I most need to take have to do with my career and my spending patterns. So I try to focus on reading about software development, for example. Or I answer questions on this site, which at least might help someone out, and I enjoy writing. For basic financial news and research, I prefer Morningstar.com, especially if you get the premium version. The writing has more depth, it's often from qualified financial analysts, and with the paid version you get data and analysis on thousands of funds and stocks, instead of a small number as with Motley Fool newsletters. I don't follow Morningstar regularly anymore, instead I use it for research when I need to pick funds in a 401k or whatever. Another caveat on Morningstar is that the \"\"star ratings\"\" on funds are dumb. Look at the Analyst Picks and the analyst writeups instead. I just flipped through my RSS reader and I have 20-30 finance-related blogs in there collecting unread posts. It looks like the only one I regularly read is http://alephblog.com/ which is sort of random. But I find David Merkel very thoughtful and interesting. He's also a conservative without being a partisan hack, and posts frequently. I read the weekly market comment at http://hussmanfunds.com/ as well. Most weeks it says the market is overvalued, so that's predictable, but the interesting part is the rationale and the other ideas he talks about. I read a lot of software-related blogs and there's some bleed into finance, especially from the VC world; blogs like http://www.avc.com/ or http://bhorowitz.com/ or whatever. Anyway I spend most of my reading time on career-related stuff and I think this is also the correct decision from a financial perspective. If you were a doctor, you'd be better off reading about doctoring, too. I read finance-related books fairly often, I guess there are other threads listing ideas on that front. I prefer books about principles rather than a barrage of daily financial news and questionable ideas. Other than that, I keep up with headlines, just reading the paper every day including business-related topics is good enough. If there's some big event in the financial markets, it'll show up in the regular paper. Take a class I initially learned about finance by reading a pile of books and alongside that taking the CFP course and the first CFA course. Both are probably equivalent to about a college semester worth of work, but you can plow through them in a couple months each if you focus. You can just do the class (and take the exam if you like), without having to go on and actually get the work experience and the certifications. I didn't go on to do that. This sounds like a crazy thing to do, and it kind of is, but I think it's also sort of crazy to expect to be competent on a topic without taking some courses or otherwise getting pretty deep into the material. If you're a normal person and don't have time to take finance courses, you're likely better off either keeping it super-simple, or else outsourcing if you can find the right advisor: What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? When it's inevitably complex (e.g. as you approach retirement) then an advisor is best. My mom is retiring soon and I found her a professional, for example. I like having a lot of knowledge myself, because it's just the only way I could feel comfortable. So for sure I understand other people wanting to have it too. But what I'd share from the other side is that once you have it, the conclusion is that you don't have enough knowledge (or time) to do anything fancy anyway, and that the simple answers are fine. Check out http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 Investing for fun isn't investing for profit Many people recommend Motley Fool (I see two on this question already!). The site isn't evil, but the problem (in my opinion) is that it promotes an attitude toward and a style of investing that isn't objectively justifiable for practical reasons. Essentially I don't think optimizing for making money and optimizing for having fun coexist very well. If investing is your chosen hobby rather than fishing or knitting, then Motley Fool can be fun with their tone and discussion forums, but other people in forums are just going to make you go wrong money-wise; see behavioral finance research again. Talking to others isn't compatible with ice in your decision-making veins. Also, Motley Fool tends to pervasively make it sound like active investing is easier than it is. There's a reason the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum is a few reams of paper plus 4 years of work experience, rather than reading blogs. Practical investing (\"\"just buy the target date fund\"\") can be super easy, but once you go beyond that, it's not. I don't really agree with the \"\"anyone can do it and it's not work!\"\" premise, any more than I think that about lawyering or doctoring or computer programming. After 15 years I'm a programming expert; after some courses and a lot of reading, I'm not someone who could professionally run an actively-managed portfolio. I think most of us need to have the fun part separate from the serious cash part. Maybe literally distinct accounts that you keep at separate brokerages. Or just do something else for fun, besides investing. Morningstar has this problem too, and finance.yahoo.com, and Bloomberg, I mean, they are all interested in making you think about investing a lot more than you ought to. They all have an incentive to convince you that the latest headlines make a difference, when they don't. Bottom line, I don't think personal finance changes very quickly; the details of specific mutual funds change, and there's always some new twist in the tax code, but the big picture is pretty stable. I think going in-depth (say, read the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum materials) would teach you a lot more than reading blogs frequently. The most important things to work on are income (career) and spending (to maximize income minus spending). That's where time investment will pay off. I know it's annoying to argue the premise of the question rather than answering, but I did try to mention a couple things to read somewhere in there ;-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7664a51de25f2cd352a3584104a914df",
"text": "Those are the three books that were considered fundamental at my university: Investments - Zvi Bodie (Author), Alex Kane (Author), Alan Marcus (Author), Stylianos Perrakis (Author), Peter Ryan (Author) This book covers the basics of financial markets. It explains how markets work, general investing principles, basic risk notions, various types of financial instruments and their characteristics and portfolio management principles. Futures and Options markets - John C. Hull This book goes more in depth into derivatives valuation and the less common / more complex instruments. The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities This books covers fixed income securities. In all cases, they are not specifically math-oriented but they do not shy away from it when it is called for. I have read the first and the other two were recommended by professors / friends now working in financial markets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed94c996ea2eda52c332ab82b4541cd4",
"text": "I really like Value Investing by Bruce Greenwald. It's not a textbook so you can probably pick it up for about $20. While it is dense, I think with some patience you might be able to understand it at the undergrad level. The process outlined in the VI book is very different from the conventional corp finance way of valuing a company. A typical corp finance model would probably have you model cash flows 5 or 10 years out and then assume some sort of terminal growth. The VI book argues that it's nearly impossible to predict things that far out accurately so build your valuation on what we know. Start with the balance sheet. Then look at this year's earnings. Is that sustainable? This is a simplification of course but I describe it only so you can get the idea. I think it's definitely a worthwhile read.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa26101b0073b60c433c10ea2fbe9cbd",
"text": "can someone recommend a book for everything finance for real estate? what are some key distinctive features that crunching numbers for real estate have? im looking for stuff like cash flow, risk that comes with leverage.. stuff i have no idea about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "732b1d87850d18987f69ce516b933752",
"text": "\"This Stack Exchange site is a nice place to find answers and ask questions. Good start! Moving away from the recursive answer... Simply distilling personal finance down to \"\"I have money, I'll need money in the future, what do I do\"\", an easily digestible book with how-to, multi-step guidelines is \"\"I Will Teach You To Be Rich\"\". The author talks about setting up the accounts you should have, making sure all your bills are paid automatically, saving on the big things and tips to increase your take home pay. That link goes to a compilation page on the blog with many of the most fundamental articles. However, \"\"The World’s Easiest Guide To Understanding Retirement Accounts\"\" is a particularly key article. While all the information is on the free blog, the book is well organized and concise. The Simple Dollar is a nice blog with frugal living tips, lifestyle assessments, financial thoughts and reader questions. The author also reviews about a book a week. Investing - hoping to get better returns than savings can provide while minimizing risk. This thread is an excellent list of books to learn about investing. I highly recommend \"\"The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing\"\" and \"\"The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need\"\". The world of investment vehicles is huge but it doesn't have to be complicated once you ignore all the fads and risky stuff. Index mutual funds are the place to start (and maybe end). Asset allocation and diversification are themes to guide you. The books on that list will teach you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1e87e20ea7c2e4339234e735b7a73ef",
"text": "How much finance and software engineering you're looking to do? I had a pleasure to work with a guy who did support (high level) for internal equity trading platform at IB (much less pleasure to work with). He moved to algo trading at another IB some time ago. He told me he started with 0 finance knowledge but by the time he was leaving by my account he was magician in proficiency in both fields. Took only a year or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2a932050402a9e3dd0164694d8c976d",
"text": "Hi, I am 20, pursuing majors in Petroleum Eng. I have almost zero knowledge of finance or trading. I want to shift my career to finance (preferably algo-trading ). So I've started with learning python. What else do you suggest I can start with?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "574b017cfd1cf5f806022929d53b7fdc",
"text": "No need for Fabozzi yet. His stuff gets cover in plenty of college textbooks, old and new. Keep browsing /r/finance, /r/personalfinance, and /r/investing and you'll find the usual recommendations. Here's goldman sach's recommended reading list: http://www.stat.unc.edu/faculty/cji/890-11/Goldman-Sachs-Suggested-Reading-List.pdf No need to read it all. Follow your interests.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72ad718ec6550fe07b59f6f835d43aea",
"text": "I am a Systems Engineering major. I currently work at a prop trading firm trading fixed income. I would emphasize your math skills, analytical thinking learned in engineering school, and express how much you are interested/experience in finance. It seems like you are on top of all that and if the job market wasn't so rough, I would say you sound like an ideal candidate and I feel like most finance jobs like people with engineering/math backgrounds as long as they are knowledgeable in finance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a89732162a36547931d4725f1d857bb8
|
How does the debt:GDP ratio affect the country's economy?
|
[
{
"docid": "f5bbd155106252bac19ade8abd48cacc",
"text": "\"Is it not that bad? Depends how bad is bad. The problems causes by a government having large debt are similar to those caused by an individual having large debt. The big issue is: More and more of your income goes to paying interest on the debt, and is thus not available for spending on goods and services. If it gets bad enough, you find you cannot make payments, you start defaulting on loans, and then you have to make serious sacrifices, like selling your property to pay the debt. Nations have an advantage over individuals in that they can sometimes repudiate debt, i.e. simply declare that they are not going to pay. Lenders can then refuse to give them more money, but that doesn't get their original loans paid back. In theory other nations could send in troops to seize property to pay the loan, but this is a very extreme solution. Totally aside from any moral considerations, modern warfare is very expensive, it's likely the war would cost you more than you'd recover on the debt. How much debt is too much? It's hard to give a number, any more than one could give a \"\"maximum acceptable debt\"\" for an individual. American banks have a rule of thumb that they won't normally loan you money if your total debt payments would be more than 1/3 of your income. I've never come close to that, that seems awfully high to me. But, say, a young person just starting out so he's not making a lot of money, and he lives someplace with high housing prices, might find this painful but acceptable. Etc.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "24ce5118de0a6de657638a8502dbeda9",
"text": "It appears that co-signing does impact your debt-to-income ratio, at least in the US. An article on Kiplinger says: An article on Forbes agrees saying: There is a similar question here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb0620c4461261d93b19038ec5cca58d",
"text": "The Greece debt crisis started after the Global financial crisis. Let's say 2008 they were indebted with 103 % of their annual Economic Output ( GDP ). This rose to 175 % of GDP in 2013. Different reasons. * their GDP dropped about 1/3 from '08->'13 * economy based on olive oil and tourism was unsustainable * huge public service sector ( military and ministries) Greece could not be trusted to pay back loans, so the European Union had to jump in to be a lender of last resort. In the middle of this year, they finally offered the first tranche of treasuries. So they are slowly coming back to be stabilized. But Change is slow. They are still above 175 % of GDP in debt. They still have negative growth and they still need to rely on help from Allies. Now that the German elections are over, you might hear something about the crisis again. I think there is supposed to be negotiations about future aid for Greece. Greece already had substantial hidden debt cuts( extension of their bay back period and so on). But you since it is a political subject, you can only do so much till the politicians start to fear a backlash from their constituents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1a0264d8d456f3edb6eb46cfc581ab4",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://voxeu.org/article/investing-roads-versus-schools) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Although public investment in roads represents an important engine of growth for many developing countries, investing in schools would appear to be an even more pressing need for them. > For a prolonged time the economy enjoys faster growth by investing only in roads, and it takes about a generation for the output obtained by investing in schools to overtake that delivered by investing in roads. > On the one hand, it shrinks the delay with which output resulting from investing in schools overtakes that from investing in roads and results in very similar paths of public debt. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tkm6v/is_it_better_to_invest_in_roads_or_schools/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~190257 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*: **schools**^#1 **investment**^#2 **public**^#3 **roads**^#4 **spend**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "527ed0927a72d065546cc9c9b44eb994",
"text": "Should voters care? What is the scenario in which this debt actually becomes a problem? It seems to me that the money from this debt is largely going into the pockets of US Citizens, so less debt would mean less prosperity for Americans. What are the arguments against this assumption?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "440a586735e707c8207b09ed7ea6c8fb",
"text": "Lots of countries *have* printed themselves away from debt. Not all inflation turns into a death spiral like Zimbabwe (or Weimar Germany) did, for that you need to have a really shitty economy that no-one believes in. The problem with Japan right now is that they are trying to print their debt away, but as they do so, their currency *appreciates*. Gold medal for the first one who manages to explain that one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d5d83f73399ee54b114ed6fe6b4c510",
"text": "> A significant proportion of recent economic growth has relied on borrowed money -- today standing at a dizzying 325 percent of global gross domestic product. Debt allows society to accelerate consumption, as borrowings are used to purchase something today against the promise of future repayment. Unfunded entitlements to social services, health care and pensions increase those liabilities. The bill for these commitments will soon become unsustainable, as demographic changes make it more difficult to meet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab3426918775fa11879e8af86ae762c8",
"text": "Income inequality has been increasing quite a bit. This means the rich are getting richer, with everyone else getting poorer. The handful of rich peOple can't generate much economic activity. They, for example, only eat 3 meals a day, buy a few cars a piece, own a few homes apiece, etc. The massive numbers of people in the middle and lower cannot buy as much stuff as they used to. For example, they eat out less; hold off buying that new car; go to fewer concerts, don't go on vacation, etc. This lowers demand all around. Less demand equals less economic activity. Governmental austerity will only make matters worse, as this will lower demand even more, producing less economic activity. This has been and continues happening in Europe big-time. Germany is pretty the only country that ramped up government spending in the last few years, and bought their way out ofmtheir recession. Greece, on the other hand, has had nothing but austerity and is circling the drain. Tl;dr 1% lots of money can't spend enough--99% little money, just can't spend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a60a9083f1333441b295b62e218cffee",
"text": ">In the simple equation of debt-to-GDP you want GDP to grow much quicker than debt. This is similar to having your income growing quicker than your actual debt. The answer of course is to adopt a growth-oriented fiscal stance. The opposite of austerity. Open season on deficit hawks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2f5cee9025d81267d092f2be7d03b26",
"text": "I was thinking down the road about what may happen as some countries pile on debt and others are more responsible. I've spent a lot of time oversea and talented people in the capital cities are really mobile these days. Right now there's a small brain drain to the benefit of Switzerland which has some really innovative people moving there. What if a large country like Germany were to do on a larger scale? Educated workforce, innovative and if you overlook a really ugly period, a great history of innovation. It seems they could bring in a lot of people from Japan and (increasingly) the US as they head slowly toward debt of 200% of GDP. Why would talented people who are highly mobile want to stay in a country where the debt will take 30 years to repay mostly on the back of the talented high earning people?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "434cc73ef6ba8ef7f1a730b07c191a35",
"text": "Nobody is suggesting that China hasn't had massive amounts of growth. However, even a relatively small discrepancy (for instance, 6.9% against 6.5%, similar to what appears in the article) can compound in to a huge difference over years. If that relatively minute 0.4% spread were misreported since the 90s, that produces output gap of about USD $2 trillion (roughly 10% of the GDP). It's hard to guess the magnitude of the inaccuracies, though some estimates exist, but I'd be willing to bet that the government never *under* reports growth. Why do inflated assets matter? Because they lead to unrealizable capital gains on the balance sheet that gets counted in GDP, potentially producing reporting inaccuracies. I agree with you that infrastructure projects drive a lot of China's growth, but again, the other drivers notwithstanding, there is a material difference between 6.5% and 6.9%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8d8c6e506c44613c598e5852db46dec",
"text": "I am - The economy is influenced by the debt and government manipulation in the short term, which is going to drive employment (or lack thereof). In the slightly longer term, a financial collapse followed by an economic collapse and depression are going to mean very high unemployment for a very long time. What we've got now is only bad compared to what we've been used to for the last few decades. In a depression where government aid is unavailable because the government is the cause of it, things will be considerably worse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e3d6a2ce2c219ca85fe488f106792ae",
"text": "\"While you have asked for general principles, I am going to seize onto a specific example you gave in order to illustrate the difficulties here: Argentina. Argentina's bonds are probably not safer than US treasuries. Argentina is presently in the business of seizing foreign oil businesses (Repsol YPF) while championing leftist causes. At the very least this indicates an elevated level of political risk: S&P, which affirmed Argentina's ratings five notches into junk territory at B, said policies such as those enacted since the country's October presidential election could also weaken Argentina's macroeconomic framework and external liquidity... \"\"Actions of this type continue to shorten the economic planning horizon in the country and contribute to Argentina's deteriorating economic and political links with the international community.\"\" -- \"\"S&P Lowers Argentina Outlook To Negative\"\". The Wall Street Journal, 23 April 2012 You're not going to be able to capture that sort of a risk with raw budget numbers. It's hard enough to figure out creditworthiness for a business; for an entire nation it's even harder. That's why credit-rating firms, as faulty as they may be, employ dozens of people to try and figure this sort of thing out. Additionally, there is a currency risk associated with buying bonds denominated in foreign currencies. It doesn't matter much if $nation repays all its bonds if they have so much inflation that the repayment is worth half of what it used to be (nor is it much help if your own nation's currency rises in value while your investment's value is stable elsewhere). Ultimately the value of a bond is \"\"how much money am I actually going to get back?\"\" and while operating a budget surplus isn't a bad sign in and of itself, it's hardly the complete picture. A fair accounting of the relative creditworthiness of any two nations needs to unite two massive fields of study: Macroeconomics and Politics. It is possible that the right sort of degree in economics, risk management, or a similar field of study could prepare you to know exactly what sort of research is necessary to make a meaningful analysis. :) Now, if you just want some commentary on which bonds are safe to buy, ask a credit-rating agency -- for example, read Standard and Poor's sovereign ratings - or find a mutual fund which may invest in international bonds at its own discretion and have someone else make the decisions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed6917e6ed1352a3feb52c369c837ff5",
"text": "\">Staggering levels of national debt that is only growing due to continued budget deficits. As it stands now, the national debt stands at over 100% of annual GDP, and that figure is only growing as the deficit remains huge. Debt as a percentage of GDP is a useless metric. Debt can be paid off over decades while GDP is at one point in time. Japan isn't too worried about their debt. >Governments from municipal to states in financial disarray. It's been like this for centuries. It's a short term problem that eventually gets resolved with a stronger economy. >Crumbling infrastructure after decades of insufficient funding and maintenance throughout the country. \"\"Crumbling\"\" gets thrown out a lot. Just because we don't build high speed trains that we cannot afford doesn't mean our infrastructure is crumbling. We have the best freight railroad network in the world, the best highway system in the world, and cities all over the country are heavily investing in mass transit. >A population grown completely accustomed to a resource-intensive, globalized lifestyle relative to that enjoyed by almost any other country on Earth. So? >And finally, the combination of the game of economic dominoes unfolding in Europe and a slowing Chinese economy. Again, Europe is a temporary problem. Greece, Spain, Italy, etc are all in hell right now but they are offset but the gains made by Germany and the Netherlands.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e9a22e7b05f2ab58c4fc193e7c67187",
"text": "Regarding the Summer of 2011 Crisis: There is NO reason that the United States cannot continue borrowing like it is just based on a particular ratio: Debt to GDP. The Debt to GDP ratio right now is around 100%, or 1:1. This means the US GDP is around $14 Trillion and its debt is also around $14 trillion. Other countries have higher debt:gdp ratios Japan - for instance - has a debt:gdp ratio of 220% Regarding a selloff of stocks, dollars and bonds: you have to realize that selling pressure on the dollar will make THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING increase. So commodities and stocks will skyrocket proportionally. The stockmarket can selloff faster than the dollar though. And both markets have circuit breakers that can attempt to curb quick selloffs. Effectiveness pending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21fbfc6681fd8c364e11fb4068b4e5cc",
"text": "Idk if equating fiscal policy to direct changes in debt is the greatest idea. Yes if you buy one more F-35 your debt will increase by $160 million. However it's more complicated when discussing decreased debt, as for the direct cause.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5c33d6d48df05dfa186daa003b5abb53
|
Why is everyone saying how desperately we need to save money “in this economy”?
|
[
{
"docid": "b11df8886bfc15acff79643c963ad347",
"text": "\"You ask a few different, though not unrelated, questions. Everywhere you turn today, you hear people talk about how much they need to save or how important it is to find a good deal on things \"\"in this economy\"\". They use phrases like \"\"now more than ever\"\" and \"\"in these uncertain times\"\". It seems to be a lot of doom and gloom. Some of this is marketing spiel. You may notice that when the economy goes south the number of ads for the cheaper alternatives goes north. (e.g. hair clippers, discount grocery stores, discount just about anything) Truth is, we should always be looking for ways to save money on goods and services we purchase. The question is, what is acceptable to you for your desired lifestyle. (And, is that desired lifestyle reasonable for your income, age and personal situation.) Generally speaking, the harder times are the more we find discounted/cheaper alternatives acceptable. Is there really a good reason that people should be saving more than spending right now? How much you are putting away is a personal matter. I can still remember my dad griping whenever he couldn't save half of his paycheck. That said, putting away half your paycheck may lead to a rather austere lifestyle. This, of course, depends on the size of your paycheck and your desired lifestyle. You could be raking it, living simply and potentially put away more than half your income with relative ease. If you have a stable job, and a decent cash reserve, is it anymore \"\"dangerous\"\" to make a large purchase now than it was seven years ago? Who knows? Honestly, no one. Predicting the future is a fool's errand. (If you are interested in reading more on this view point, I suggest The Black Swan.) You mention the correct approach in this question. Ensure that you have liquid assets (cash or cash equivalents, i.e. money that you can draw on immediately and isn't credit) which covers at least 3-6 months of your necessary expenses (rent/mortgage, bills, car payments, food). (There is no reason that you couldn't try to increase this to 1 year, especially \"\"in this economy.\"\") You should also strive to have money available for emergencies that don't necessarily include loss of income. Of course, make sure you're putting away for retirement, as appropriate for your retirement goals. After that should come discretionary items, including investing, entertainment, the large purchase you mentioned, etc. You should never use money that you may need immediately (5-10 years) for investing. This doesn't necessarily include the large purchase you are contemplating. For example, if you are considering purchasing a home, the down-payment may be one of the items for which you need money in the \"\"immediate\"\" future. Is it really only because of unemployment numbers? This is probably the big one that is the focus of everyone's attention. That said, the human attention span is limited. We have a natural need to simplify things. This is one of the reasons that we tend to focus on a few, hopefully important, things. However, the unemployment numbers are not that the only thing of concern. Credit is still pretty hard to come by these days. The overall economy is still hurting, even if we are technically no longer in a recession. There are also concerns about U.S. government borrowing, consumer spending, recent trucking numbers, etc. (It may not be obvious, but trucking is used as a barometer of economic activity. If there aren't as many trucks carting goods across the country, it probably means that there is less economic activity.) The headline number these days is unemployment, as most census workers have now been returned to the pool. To answer the overall question, we should always be saving money, in good times or in bad. Be that by squeezing more value out of our purchases or by putting some money away. We should always try to reduce our risks, by having an emergency \"\"cash\"\" cushion. We should always be saving for retirement. Truth be told, it is probably more important to put money away in good times, before the hardships hit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f96bfee69cfdf9f7b0449bd154e8df2",
"text": "As you point out in your question your risk level is personal. If you really believe your job is stable there is no more risk. However the overall evidence is that most jobs are less stable, and if you do lose your job you're likely going to be out of work for a while. One thing to consider though is that if you have planned on emergency credit in the past, that option is not really viable anymore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d4da236acbcbe8db2d292c774cbf990",
"text": "\"I would add to the other excellent answers that another factor besides just high unemployment numbers is the fear people have regarding the \"\"financial\"\" aspects of the country, that is the value of stocks and the value of the dollar. When the economy is sluggish it means people aren't buying enough, therefore companies aren't making enough, therefore their profits are too low and people start to divest from them, and stock prices drop. Or even the fear of this happening can induce people to sell off shares. The point is, people are worried \"\"in this economy\"\" because if--due to unemployment, low spending/consumer confidence--the stock market crashes again as it did in 2008/09, that represents a lot of savings lost, e.g. 40-50% of what one was counting on to retire with, particularly if you panic sell at the bottom. Now suddenly it's as if you had a huge robbery, and you will have to work longer into your retirement years than you'd planned. Similarly, if, due to monetary policy, the U.S. inflates the dollar, what one saved for retirement may not be sufficient. (These arguments are true for shorter periods than just one's retirement, but just taking that as an example). So it's not just unemployment that is worrisome \"\"in this economy\"\". This said, I agree with George Marian that one ought to be careful and plan well regardless of the winds of the economy. I guess for most people (and companies), though, \"\"in this economy\"\" means they can't get away with the kind of carelessness they might have during a boom.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5916d0641665dba5b9bd44c1ea6d82c8",
"text": "It's all about risk. In 1990, expressing the idea of the US defaulting on debt payments would result in you being labelled as a crank. Yet in 2011, the President and Speaker of the House played chicken with the credit of the United States, and have a date to do it again in December 2011.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f9b25ee0fc4e9ae4d7ebf4281e3679a",
"text": "Saving some money for the future is a good idea. But how much to save is a tough question. I retired with a small fraction of what the experts said I would need. Three years later, I can confidently say I did not even need what I had saved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10cdd96d500ca701a652bd70c1b162fd",
"text": "This was called Financial repression by Edward S. Shaw and Ronald I. McKinnon from Stanford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression). Financial repression is the situation, when government is stealing from people, who rely heavily on saving, rather then on spending. Meaning that your saving rates will be a lot worse then inflation rate. Financial markets are artificially hot and interest rates artificially low (average historical interest rate is 10%). This could be a possible predictor state to hyper-inflation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c256cc471cf2a1929507906a781f412f",
"text": "\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have bank accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca285c080f0cfbf760d644dbff0775e2",
"text": "What is best for everyone is maximizing the effectiveness of the resources at hand. We are most certainly not doing that, as there is just so much capacity sitting idle right now. Demand is what we are lacking. Stimulus creates demand. Demand puts people to work, it builds companies, it brings ideas to fruition. Effective limiters can be used to avoid consequences of an overheating economy when that time comes, but we are far away from that point. Imposing these silly superstitions that somehow someday the U.S. is going to get to a point where we can't pay back our debt is making us lose focus on the fact that real people are suffering today, and that we can do something about it. Without artificial constraints like congress putting a limit on the debt, **it is impossible for the U.S. government to default.**",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f07af10bc00f54fb90c1694898806ea",
"text": "\"Both OP and the author of the newspaper article should have titled this \"\"When the media take the time to explain the true state of our economy, people are less optimistic about the future.\"\" A simple link to [this](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UMCSENT) graph would show that consumer confidence has rebounded, but dipped during the debt crisis (as it should have) because the media were reminding people how utterly weak our economy is. The fact that average hourly earnings today are exactly where they were in 2008 is a disaster. But to state that Americans perception of the economy is worse is flat wrong. They actually perceive it as improving when in fact it's on extremely shaky ground.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e1626a8841ae03410334dd28d884510",
"text": "\"If one takes a slightly more expansive view of the word \"\"saving\"\" to include most forms of durable asset accumulation, I think the reason some do and most don't is a matter of a few factors, I will include the three that seem obvious to me: Education Most schools in the US where I live do not offer personal finance courses, and even when they do, there is no opportunity for a student to practice good financial habits in that classroom setting. I think a simple assignment that required students to track every penny that they spend over the period of a few months would help them open their eyes to how much money is spent on trivial things that they don't need. Perhaps this would be more effective in a university setting where the students are usually away from home and therefore more responsible for the spending that occurs on their own behalf. Beyond simple education about personal finances, most people have no clue how the various financial markets work. If they understood, they would not allow inflation to eat away at their savings, but that's a separate topic from why people do not save. Culture Since much of the education above isn't happening, children get their primary financial education from their parents. This means that those who are wealthy teach their children how to be wealthy, and those who are poor pass on their habits to children who often also end up poor. Erroneous ideas about consumption vs. investment and its economic effects also causes some bad policy encouraging people to live beyond their means and use credit unwisely, but if you live in a country where the average person expects to eat out regularly and trade in their automobiles as soon as they experienced their highest rate of depreciation, it can be hard to recognize bad financial behavior for what it is. Collective savings rates reflect a lot of individuals who are emulating each other's bad behavior. Discipline Even when someone is educated about finances, they may not establish good habits of budgeting regularly, tracking spending, and setting financial goals. For me, it helps to be married to someone who has similar financial goals, because we budget monthly and any major purchases (over $100 or so) must be agreed upon at the beginning of the month (with obvious exceptions for emergencies). This eliminates any impulsive spending, which is probably 90% of the battle for me. Some people do not need to account to someone else in order to spend wisely, but everyone should find a system that works for them and helps them to maintain some financial discipline.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d10fdaed8cd256c5d5b2dd3f2d9e6c7",
"text": "Can you even answer a simple question? Economics is not game unless you're thinking playing with people lives is a game? Government saving is giving away money? What? Do you even know what saving means? Also it's not because I don't agree with you that I don't have an open mind. I go with the facts and the facts suggest you're on another planet. Going against the status quo isn't a sign of an open mind.",
"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": "b97e5030624fbfd621ea1dc1f44dddc8",
"text": "\"If I understand, you're saying that the cause of the slow recovery is structural. That is, that our economic problems are due to to being unproductive. That's simply wrong. [There is no evidence of that.](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/the-structural-obsession/) Moreover, there is not \"\"plenty of demand\"\" as you claim. Expected aggregate demand growth isn't what it used to be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3922bedf4de543ac54fbd00e3a7c3fa7",
"text": "\"but simple economics also proves that if you have no savings (most millennials do not these days at least in Canada) and you have no income, then you have no entertainment or more importantly no shelter and food. I would understand taking a cashier job instead of store manager job because of the fewer hours and responsibility, but does \"\"no income\"\" not mean you go hungry? If that is true, where are they getting their food from?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41f63306bc3f9040845fb2bb465aa323",
"text": "\"Well, first off - yes, every year the younger generation grows up but remember that the older generation also dying off/leaving the market place. Also, what happens if the younger generation can't take up enough debt in order to pay for previous commitments? Secondly, I think you're confusing the money supply with actual production. The two are pretty much divorced from each other - money doesn't require a \"\"resource\"\" per se (at least, not since leaving the gold standard), it just requires that someone is able/willing to take on debt. For example, every time you take a loan out from the bank, you are effectively creating money. This is called bank credit and if you live in a country that uses fractional reserve banking then it makes up a very large part of your money supply (think like up to 95%). When bank's create money, they only create the principle amount (ie. the original loan amount) and not the interest amount as well. This means that someone else needs to take out a loan so that you can repay the amount in interest that you owe on your new loan. This doesn't normally affect you because there are lots of people taking out lots of loans all the time and money is circulating around in the economy. The problem is that eventually the system gets to a stage where people can't really take out loans any more, they just have too much debt, and so you end up with a liquidity crisis like in 2008. So what I was saying is that either I'm missing something pretty obvious and I've got this wrong or this is exactly how it works and economists like to just ignore it for the benefits that it offers...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76d142e5fb17aaf1ea6bbf10412bf8fd",
"text": "Preparations for inflation that is not going to happen anytime soon is preventing much needed currency from being injected into the system. The deflationary pressures are so strong that less and less currency is being circulated, as people fear for the future. They save more and spend less, because their neighbor's out of work, and they might be next (if they are lucky enough to still have a job). That's not to mention that huge mortgage that they bought into, and are now massively underwater with. With that, they are constantly removing chunks of currency from circulation. When everyone is taking chunks out, the demand for currency rises, and demand for goods and services dies, creating an ever deepening hole. So yes, I think the government should be making major purchases, damn the deficit. Fiber to everyone's home, absolutely massive funding of clean energy research and projects, combat infrastructure decay, etc etc. Labor and resources are cheap right now, and leaving all these people with stagnating skill sets by the wayside with no options creates an exponential decrease in productivity. We have the methods to control inflation when and if it rears it head.. high taxation and high interest rates. Let's burn that bridge when we get there. The U.S. budget does not work like a household, as alluring as this analogy is. There is no paying back the deficit, and there will never be a problem paying the interest on a a currency we can make more of at any point. The real limitation here is inflation, and we have none.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5adec6c3986a6144d2b490f6718cbc7",
"text": "\"Smartphones? Really? How about a lack of work and a scarcity of disposable income? Currently the US unemployment rate is at 4.2%, below the mark for \"\"full employment\"\" and *well* below where upwards wage pressure should be forming. At the same time, the participation rate is also moribund, dithering around the 60% mark. At this point, there should be so much wage pressure that an argument over minimum wage should be moot, as even the corner McD's should be offering $15 an hour just to get people to notice the help wanted sign, and yet it isn't happening. Why? Because there are no jobs. \"\"But the BLS says there are 6.2 million jobs available!\"\" you say. Yes, and they've said so since July. This is called churn, and it's the same jobs being offered over and over again to people who stay for a month and move on. The low inflation is due to one thing: Normal, everyday people have no money to spend, there is no real economic growth, there is no wage pressure. All the money is locked up in financial markets, making more wealth, but producing nothing. \"\"But look at all the smartphones that exist today\"\" that replaced flip phones that replaced wall phones. Sure, everything is cheaper: It has to be, or else no one could afford it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8ac04acdd03e5aee92e8b4c4d3c7d80",
"text": "\"It's also not really anything new. For a several decades, a huge percentage of the population has been essentially living paycheck-to-paycheck, and with essentially zero cash savings to cover emergencies. It's possible that it is slightly worse now in the sense that -- with the pervasive use of credit & debit cards, etc -- few people deal in cash or change very often ... and so they don't even have the old proverbial \"\"piggy banks\"\" (or jars/bottles filled with end-of-day pocket-change) that they can raid for $50 or $100. *Oh, and THAT really has nothing to do with \"\"bubbles\"\".* --- EDIT: Plus another thought... just the other day there was an article crowing about how Millennials are \"\"saving for retirement\"\" in higher amounts and at earlier ages than prior generations -- if that is true, then a likely corollary would be that they are NOT engaged in plain old \"\"savings\"\" at the same rate -- i.e. what money they are \"\"stashing away\"\" is all heading to Wall Street, and is difficult to access in an emergency (and if they did access 401k savings, it would likely be as a \"\"loan\"\" -- rather than paying the early-withdrawal penalties & taxes).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc2c03f56b9573df37e0b93d383d7a0a",
"text": "\"There's a lot wrong with your explanation and analogy. I believe you are trying to refute otherwiseyep but you haven't really. You have described the \"\"work\"\" or the \"\"step in the money-building process,\"\" that was happening *before* otherwiseyep's scenario. otherwiseyep's scenario begins at \"\"the apple farmer wants to get some meat but the orchard hasn't matured yet,\"\" implying that apples have in fact been traded for meat in real time. Secondly, I would much prefer a person build their own explanation and analogy than build onto someone else's while thinking it insightful in any way. Lastly, you went all Paul Krugman on us and used the word \"\"costs of production\"\" which I *think* you mean to be \"\"work\"\" but you did not build that analogy. When you went \"\"Paul Krugman,\"\" you jumped a HUGE boat. Krugman talks about very advanced economics and some of his stuff is political in nature. At no point did you build any specific analogies to Paul Krugman's many theories. You so completely lost me with that, I almost went into negative integers. Edit: otherwiseyep had been misspelled as otherwiseyes. Slightly laughable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "465225c92c657be73d2e99211fcc0048",
"text": "Because its working so well right now? Companies will still higher new employees if there is a demand. Some people might lose their jobs but it will not be something that cripples the economy. This sky is falling mentality is what keeps us stuck in this pseudo slavery enviornment we live in right now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92310c6dc73db7a4cbbb2ccb0b699dd8",
"text": "Besides all of the other answers, I will point out that many people simply don't have enough cash sitting around to buy a home outright. It would take many years (or even decades) for the average family to accumulate the necessary cash. Also, while you are pinching your pennies for years in an attempt to save up for your dream house, remember that inflation is steadily driving up the cost of goods and services. A house that costs $200K today could cost $230K in 5 years due to inflation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
895261280b58a941e1137698efc55ebc
|
Investment / Savings advice in uncertain economy
|
[
{
"docid": "25576cb705e4edc9ccb7e8c1921ad71b",
"text": "$23,000 Student Loans at 4% This represents guaranteed loss. Paying this off quickly is a conservative move, while your other investments may easily surpass 4% return, they are not guaranteed. Should I just keep my money in my savings account since I want to keep my money available? Or are there other options I have that are not necessarily long term may provide better returns? This all depends on your plans, if you're just trying to keep cash in anticipation of the next big dip, you might strike gold, but you could just as easily miss out on significant market gains while waiting. People have a poor track record of predicting market down-turns. If you are concerned about how exposed to market risk you are in your current positions, then you may be more comfortable with a larger cash position. Savings/CDs are low-interest, but much lower risk. If you currently have no savings (you titled the section savings, but they all look like retirement/investment accounts), then I would recommend focusing on that first, getting a healthy emergency fund saved up, and budgeting for your car/house purchases. There's no way to know if you'd be better off investing everything or piling up cash in the short-term. You have to decide how much risk you are comfortable with and act accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc13c4bd1503bbb1b62c7955bea94d58",
"text": "\"An alternative to a savings account is a money market account. Not a bank \"\"Money Market\"\" account which pays effectively the same silly rate as a savings account, but an actual Money Market investment account. You can even write checks against some Money Market investment accounts. I have several accounts worth about 13,000 each. Originally, my \"\"emergency fund\"\" was in a CD ladder. I started experimenting with two different Money market investment accounts recently. Here's my latest results: August returns on various accounts worth about $13k: - Discover Bank CD: $13.22 - Discover Bank CD: $13.27 - Discover Bank CD: $13.20 - Discover Savings: $13.18 - Credit Union \"\"Money Market\"\" Savings account: $1.80 - Fidelity Money Market Account (SPAXX): $7.35 - Vanguard Money market Account (VMFXX): $10.86 The actual account values are approximate. The Fidelity Money Market Account holds the least value, and the Credit Union account by far the most. The result of the experiment is that as the CDs mature, I'll be moving out of Discover Bank into the Vanguard Money Market account. You can put your money into more traditional equities mutual fund. The danger with them is the stock market may drop big the day before you want to make your withdrawl... and then you don't have the down payment for your house anymore. But a well chosen mutual fund will yield better. There are 3 ways a mutual fund increase in value: Here's how three of my mutual funds did in the past month... adjusted as if the accounts had started off to be worth about $13,000: Those must vary wildly month-to-month. By the way, if you look up the ticker symbols, VASGX is a Vanguard \"\"Fund of Funds\"\" -- it invests not 100% in the stock market, but 80% in the stock market and 20% in bonds. VSMGX is a 60/40 split. Interesting that VASGX grew less than VSMGX...but that assumes my spreadsheet is correct. Most of my mutual funds pay dividends and capital gains once or twice a year. I don't think any pay in August.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "03bd51af0037dd95496e5d212684437d",
"text": "\"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation). That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing: a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the \"\"investment porn\"\" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries. Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79a7be86c8b7c56dca5a5d1caa005029",
"text": "\"Since this is your emergency fund, you generally want to avoid volatility while keeping pace with inflation. You really shouldn't be looking for aggressive growth (which means taking on some risk). That comes from money outside of the emergency fund. The simplest thing to do would be to shop around for a different savings account. There are some deals out there that are better than ING. Here is a good list. The \"\"traditional\"\" places to keep an emergency fund are Money Market Mutual Funds (not to be confused with Money Market Accounts). They are considered extremely safe investments. However, the returns on such a fund is pretty low these days, often lower than a high-yield online savings account. The next step up would be a bond fund (more volatility, slightly better return). Pick something that relies on Government bonds, not \"\"high-yield\"\" (junk) bonds or anything crazy like that. Fidelity Four in One comes pretty close to your \"\"index of indexes\"\" request, but it isn't the most stable thing. You'd probably do better with a safer investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89284f3984c1f9da4e87b7bcd0d6f026",
"text": "\"Many of my friends said I should invest my money on stocks or something else, instead of put them in the bank forever. I do not know anything about finance, so my questions are: First let me say that your friends may have the best intentions, but don't trust them. It has been my experience that friends tell you what they would do if they had your money, and not what they would actually do with their money. Now, I don't mean that they would be malicious, or that they are out to get you. What I do mean, is why would you take advise from someone about what they would do with 100k when they don't have 100k. I am in your financial situation (more or less), and I have friends that make more then I do, and have no savings. Or that will tell you to get an IRA -so-and-so but don't have the means (discipline) to do so. Do not listen to your friends on matters of money. That's just good all around advise. Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? Any financial situation with no or really low debt is OK. I would say 5% of annual income in unsecured debt, or 2-3 years in annual income in secured debt is a good place to be. That is a really hard mark to hit (it seems). You have hit it. So your good, right now. You may want to \"\"plan for the future\"\". Immediate goals that I always tell people, are 6 months of income stuck in a liquid savings account, then start building a solid investment situation, and a decent retirement plan. This protects you from short term situations like loss of job, while doing something for the future. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? Is it worthy? How would she/he help me? Rather it's worth it or not to use a financial adviser is going to be totally opinion based. Personally I think they are worth it. Others do not. I see it like this. Unless you want to spend all your time looking up money stuff, the adviser is going to have a better grasp of \"\"money stuff\"\" then you, because they do spend all their time doing it. That being said there is one really important thing to consider. That is going to be how you pay the adviser. The following are my observations. You will need to make up your own mind. Free Avoid like the plague. These advisers are usually provided by the bank and make their money off commission or kickbacks. That means they will advise you of the product that makes them the most money. Not you. Flat Rate These are not a bad option, but they don't have any real incentive to make you money. Usually, they do a decent job of making you money, but again, it's usually better for them to advise you on products that make them money. Per Hour These are my favorite. They charge per hour. Usually they are a small shop, and will walk you through all the advise. They advise what's best for you, because they have to sit there and explain their choices. They can be hard to find, but are generally the best option in my opinion. % of Money These are like the flat rate advisers to me. They get a percentage of the money you give them to \"\"manage\"\". Because they already have your money they are more likely to recommend products that are in their interest. That said, there not all bad. % or Profit These are the best (see notes later). They get a percentage of the money they make for you. They have the most interest in making you money. They only get part of what you get, so there going to make sure you get the biggest pie, so they can get a bigger slice. Notes In the real world, all advisers are likely to get kickbacks on products they recommend. Make sure to keep an eye for that. Also most advisers will use 2-3 of the methods listed above for billing. Something like z% of profit +$x per hour is what I like to see. You will have to look around and see what is available. Just remember that you are paying someone to make you money (or to advise you on how to make money) so long as what they take leaves you with some profit your in a better situation then your are now. And that's the real goal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c69d09b34eabd583b8c1df493606605c",
"text": "Assuming that the financial system broke down, not enough supply of essential commodities or food but there is political and administrative stability and no such chaos that threatens your life by physical attacks. The best investment would then be some paddy fields, land, some cows, chickens and enough clothing , a safe house to stay and a healthy life style that enables you to work for food and some virtue at heart and management skills to get people work for you on your resources so that they can survive with you (may be you earn some profit -that is up to your moral standards to decide, how much). It all begins to start again; a new Financial System has to be in place….!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "301bfdde2a9a2b9e9e1161c2eb7aba16",
"text": "You can't both enforce saving and have access to the money -- from what you say, it's clear that if you can access the money you will spend it. Can you find an account that allows one withdrawal every six months but no more, which should help to cut down on the impulse buys but still let you get at your money in an emergency?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6ddae69b35c5bff3de3c0e11feef1d6",
"text": "The best investment is always in yourself and increasing your usable skills. If you invest the money in expanding your skills, it won't matter what the economy does, you will always be useful.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f8153afd212e6e5cd6cf20c42f96389",
"text": "There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27956ee0d314fb8c8e1a361b3b04ae07",
"text": "I would say your decision making is reasonable. You are in the middle of Brexit and nobody knows what that means. Civil society in the United States is very strained at the moment. The one seeming source of stability in Europe, Germany, may end up with a very weakened government. The only country that is probably stable is China and it has weak protections for foreign investors. Law precedes economics, even though economics often ends up dictating the law in the long run. The only thing that may come to mind is doing two things differently. The first is mentally dropping the long-term versus short-term dichotomy and instead think in terms of the types of risks an investment is exposed to, such as currency risk, political risk, liquidity risk and so forth. Maturity risk is just one type of risk. The second is to consider taking some types of risks that are hedged either by put contracts to limit the downside loss, or consider buying longer-dated call contracts using a small percentage of your money. If the underlying price falls, then the call contracts will be a total loss, but if the price increases then you will receive most of the increase (minus the premium). If you are uncomfortable purchasing individual assets directly, then I would say you are probably doing everything that you reasonably can do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "371c1e838f63884778df632c1758dce0",
"text": "Considering the historical political instability of your nation, real property may have higher risk than normal. In times of political strife, real estate plummets, precisely when the money's needed. At worst, the property may be seized by the next government. Also, keeping the money within the country is even more risky because bank accounts are normally looted by either the entering gov't or exiting one. The safest long run strategy with the most potential for your family is to get the money out into various stable nations with good history of protecting foreign investors such as Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong. Once out, the highest expected return can be expected from internationally diversified equities; however, it should be known that the value will be very variant year to year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "948ee5b44eff4a2789c3ac703ce5d2e9",
"text": "Firstly, sorry about the accident. I am afraid you will need to do your own legwork, because you cannot trust other people with your money. It's a good thing you do not need to rush. Take your time to learn things. One thing is certain, you cannot let your money sit in a bank - inflation will digest them. You need to learn about investing yourself, or you run a risk of someone taking advantage of you. And there are people who specialise in exploiting people who have money and no idea what to do with them. There is no other way, if you have money, you need to know how to deal with it, or you are likely to lose it all. Since you need to have monthly income and also income that makes more money to make further investments, you need to look at two most common investments that are safe enough and also give good returns on investment: Property and index funds. You might also have a look at National bonds as this is considered safest investment possible (country has to go bust for you to lose money), but you are too young for that. Young = you can take more risk so Property and shares (indexes). You want to have your property investments in a country that is stable and has a good ROI (like Netherlands or Lithuania). Listen to some audio lectures: https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Health-Personal-Development/Investing-in-Real-Estate-6th-Edition-Audiobook/B008SEH1R0 https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Business/The-Secrets-of-Buy-to-Let-Success-Audiobook/B00UVVM222 https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Non-fiction/Economics-3rd-Edition-Audiobook/B00D8J7VUC https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Advanced-Investments-Part-1-Audiobook/B00HU81B80 After you sorted your investment strategy, you might want to move to a country that is Expat friendly and has lower living costs than US and you should be able to live like a king... best of luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ab2573cad4bde03574e290f5e8ed6ac",
"text": "\"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a239311eb2a819b7aadbbc3c95fa014",
"text": "The very term 'market conditions' is subjective and needs context. There are 'market conditions' that favor buying (such as post crash) or market conditions that favor selling (such as the peak of a bubble). Problem with mutual funds is you can't really pick these points yourself; because you're effectively outsourcing that to a firm. If you're tight on time and are looking for weekly update on the economy a good solution is to identify a reputable economist (with a solid track record) and simply follow their commentary via blog or newsletter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "018a0681a063de4325c24a085eb6e29a",
"text": "\"This is a \"\"stress\"\" period, much like the 1930s and 1970s. At a time like this, it is smart to be debt free, and to have money saved for the likely emergencies. There are growth periods like those of the 1980s and 1990s, probably returning in the 2020s and 2030s. At such times, it makes sense to play it a little \"\"looser\"\" and borrow money for investments. But the first order of business in answering this question is to look around you and figure out what is going on in the world (stress or growth).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b97d4bf72e0dd05ddcdc5bb3403b6ae",
"text": "There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f7891abbef9c75a7d5c213f3d855c84",
"text": "So my Question is this, in reality is investment in equities like the stock market even remotely resemble the type of growth one would expect if investing the same money in an account with compounding interest? Generally no as there is a great deal of volatility when it comes to investing in stocks that isn't well represented by simply taking the compounded annual growth rate and assuming things always went up and never went down. This is adding in the swings that the market will take that at times may be a bit of a rude surprise to some people. Are all these prognosticators vastly underestimating how much savers need to be socking away by overstating what is realistic in terms of growth in investment markets? Possibly but not probably. Until we know definitively what the returns are from various asset classes, I'm not sure I'd want to claim that people need to save a ton more. I'll agree that the model misses how wide the swings are, not necessarily that the averages are too low or overstated.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5d48dfa42c69837464ba17996277c9b0
|
How is gold shared in worldwide economies?
|
[
{
"docid": "65ee28372de3872e9a359166613cfa9a",
"text": "Money is no longer backed by gold. It's backed by the faith and credit of the issuing government. A new country,say, will first trade goods for dollars or other currency, so its ownership of gold is irrelevant. Its currency will trade at a value based on supply/demand for that currency. If it's an unstable currency, inflating too quickly, the exchange rate will reflect that as well. More than that your question kind of mixes a number of issues, loosely related. First is the gold question, second, the question of currency exchange rates and they are derived, with an example of a new country. Both interesting, but distinct processes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2010171848c9f2ed7905095c9d3428af",
"text": "\"You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem. \"\"In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.\"\" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars. Thus, the amount of money is not relevant- it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price. Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because \"\"that's how it's always been.\"\" Nobody \"\"creates/supervises\"\" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d226080c7b877bcf69c1d5c424cde17",
"text": "I think you are asking a few questions here. Why is gold chosen as money? In a free market there are five characteristics of a good money: Gold and silver meet all five characteristics. Diamonds are not easily divisible which is why they are not normally used as money. Copper, Iron, and lead are not scarce enough - you would need a lot of these metals to make weekly or daily purchases. Paper is also way too plentiful to be used as money. By the way, historically silver has been used for money more than gold. How does international trade work with gold as money (is this what you are asking with your hypothetical example of 10 countries each with y amount of gold?) Typically a government will issue a currency that is backed by gold. This means you can redeem your currency for actual gold. Then when an American spends 5 US dollars (USD) to purchase a Chinese good the Chinese man now owns 5 USDs. The Chinese man can either redeem the 5 USD for gold or spend the 5 USD in the US. If a government issues more currency then they have gold for then the gold will start to flow from that country to other countries as the citizens of the other countries redeem the over-issued currency for gold. This outflow of gold restricts governments from over-issuing paper currency. Who creates the procedures and who supervises them in modern worldwide economy? The Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements all are involved in the current system where the US dollar (see Bretton Woods agreement) is the reserve currency used by central banks throughout the world. Some think this system is coming to an end. I tend to agree.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1ebcd8981322222e077da7e11fa4c19e",
"text": "This was answered wonderfully in a recent Planet Money podcast: Why Gold?. Here are some higlights of gold: If listening to podcasts isn't your thing, read this summary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02de874aa4484ea8fc2860b128165f7c",
"text": "\"Because people are willing to trade for it. People are willing to trade for Gold because: The value of gold goes up because the demand for it goes up, while the supply has been basically static (or growing at a low static rate) for a long time. The demand is going up because people see it as a safe place to put their money. Another reason Gold's value in dollars goes up, is because the value of the item it's traded against (dollars, euros, yen, etc) goes down, while its own value stays roughly the same. You point out Gold is not as liquid as cash, but gold (both traded on an exchange, and held physically) is easily sold. There is always someone willing to trade you cash for gold. Compare this to some of the bank stocks during the first part of our current recession. People were not willing to give much of anything for your shares. As the (annoying, misleading) advertisements say, \"\"Gold has never been worth zero\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69e213e1a561b292ef85f0c079ea6cb6",
"text": "Russia main reserve is Euro, Gold and Yuan. They have dumped good sums of dollar since way back. The rest of oil buyers would gladly pay russians in whatever currency they want, specially if it is non dollar. Cheap oil on cheaper currency? Who doesn't want that? The chinese pay their oil in Yuan. Russian gladly takes Yuan, since its the most liquid currency in pacific, not to mention china is their no.1 trading partner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19c3b55e715be226f97cbb89d0b1d051",
"text": "\"Thanks for bringing up gift economies. The \"\"barter-to-credit story\"\", as you call it, is a good just-so story for explaining our current monetary system, but it's not how it actually happened. It's important to emphasize that. The gift economy is the original economy. It's used in small groups,bands or tribes of up to ~100 people, where you keep how much each person owes you in your head. These peoples don't have writing, remember. The problem with the gift economy is that it doesn't scale. Once you've got more than a couple hundred people or so (basically, Dunbar's number), or too many tradable goods and services, it starts to break down. People can't keep track of their debts anymore, and it becomes harder to agree on prices. Random aside: It's interesting to look at communism with this in mind, because essentially it's a return to something very much like a gift economy, but on a grand scale. But despite modern records-keeping and communication, it failed because we still can't coordinate such a large economy without some sort of market to set prices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "404f4c43c7313536978290ab8efe43b7",
"text": "Yes, the US dollar is the standard for all global trade - IMF driven And China has been going for that title for the past decade and this is a very smart and tactical way to do it If this goes through, gold & oil might become really good place to be. The US has been in a supply run and kept the price of oil low. Things are changing quick...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f3bfe9e1ff531df19c0d935b14360d8",
"text": "It's not really about nation states, the problem is larger than that. The West who consumes too much, faced off against the East who makes too much. Seems like everyone's just waiting for the dollar to fail, so some new order can resolve.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99ae11da9e2344a919be8ae6153f2302",
"text": "\"The reason I don't want to get into here it is because internet debates over these things turn into an absolute shit-show, instantly. In a nutshell, the (sane parts of) argument comes down to very difficult-to-prove assumptions about how perfectly fiat currency can/will be implemented. - The (sane) case for gold is that it is very difficult to get into the kind of money-printing mischief that places like Zimbabwe and Argentina have got into when your currency is based on something with a finite and slow-growing supply. It's hard to print more gold. - The (sane) case for fiat currency is that it is ridiculous to hamstring the entire economy by tying it to one arbitrary commodity with a fluctuating value and supply that does not correlate well with overall economic output. A perfectly-implemented fiat currency, printed and ordained by a perfectly omniscient, perfectly competent, and perfectly benevolent central bank (let's call it \"\"God money\"\"), is the ideal. That's pretty much axiomatic, and even sane gold-bugs would tend to allow the above, so far as it goes, including all stipulations. In fact, someone inclined to believe in divine intervention might make a case that gold is precisely that: a hard-to-forge, easy-to-detect, easy-to-handle metal placed on earth by God in quantities just right to serve as currency. The problem is that a really *bad* fiat currency is absolutely terrible: leads to nightmare-scenarios; people starving on one side of a fence while tons of crops are being burned on the other side because of runaway price-discrepancies, stuff like that. Again, even (sane) Keynesians will allow as much. The problem is that the crazies, ideologues, and single-issue zealots come out of the woodwork when you start getting into this stuff, and tend to dominate the conversation (if \"\"conversation\"\" is a fair word to use). In a sense, the \"\"sane\"\" spectrum of debate boils down to an almost ideological divide: - Whether you believe that a sort of permanent, technocratic, central-bank/currency-issuer is possible/plausible. Because if it *is* achievable, it is almost certainly better than just tying the whole economy to the price of a single commodity. If it is *not* achievable, then it is almost certainly better to let the markets adjust and correct, however imperfectly, than to tie the whole economy to the whims and wishes of incompetent and politically-motivated money-printers. (I hope that makes sense, and that it is a fair representation of the conundrum). The problem with making an argument is that you've got a hodge-podge of technical (and sometimes fairly complicated) nitty-gritty, plus a certain amount of starting-assumption/worldview/ideological stuff, all smooshed together, and almost all of it is very hard/impossible to \"\"prove\"\" via evidential scientific testing. Both the technical and historical stuff have strong conflicting indicators, and it's obviously not possible to, say, set up two identical societies and let them run for a thousand years, controlling for everything but monetary policy, and see what happens. Macro-economics is a very imperfect science. It has certainly given the world some very useful and valuable insights and axioms, but the testing methods are extremely indirect and heavily subject to interpretation: you really have only the historical record to draw on, and it is almost impossible to find examples that control for whatever variable is in question. Macro, ideally, *tries* really hard to be science, but you're always kind of picking from bad examples when testing a hypothesis, trying to line up vaguely similar historical periods to isolate for some common factor. It's kind of like geology or theoretical physics, except with much smaller and messier data-sets. Ten thousand years from now, it will be much easier to look at the historical data and isolate for particular variables over multiple hundred-year spans across a variety of cultural, political, and socio-economic backgrounds. For now, the peanut-gallery is chock full of questions that the experts cannot answer, and the record is full of exceptions to every rule, and a lot of it frankly boils down to worldview and ideology (with a healthy dollop of \"\"I'm smarter than you\"\" to finish the sauce). Since I personally prefer technical questions to politics, I will leave it to others to formulate and debate those things.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ff176eb7c422c1fc2cc9399e488d3c1",
"text": "I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd7d02335ff582044ff4b31a60e1cadd",
"text": "Dear Sir/madam We are Local Village Gold Miners from Rep. of Guinea, In West African. I am a Member of the Said Community and in charge of Marketing, Advertising, communication and sourcing potential diamond and gold dust buyers, agents/brokers or partners for our mined gold dust AU./DIAMONDS. Prior To The Latest Privilege Accorded Local Gold and Diamond Miners in Guinea Conakry Since April 2007 to Market and Sell Diamond and Gold Dust AU themselves, Thus my offer to AU Gold Dust and Diamond UNCUT Dust prospective buyers, Brokers, representatives, agents, intermediaries and partners willing To Establish Meaningful Business transaction that is Viable and Durable with us. Hence, I'm offering you a Fresh Gold Dust. AU for sale with the following specifications and details. COMMODITY.......................................AURUM UTALIUM (AU) Form................................Gold Dust/nugget Powder. Quantity..........................123kg - 500kgs and more. Quality/Purity.................. 22 carat or better. Finesse..........................92% OR Better. Location.......................... Conakry Origin............................. Guinea . Price per kg......................$35,000 USD/KG AS FOR THE DIAMOND THAT IS UNCUT, WE ARE IN POSITIONS OF OVER 4850 Carats OF GAMS STONE OF FDGH AND LM GRADES. We are looking forward to your response if our product does interest you. Accept our warm hearted Regards: NB : this is my alternative CONTACT US CAN SPEAK ENGLISH ,FRENCH AND CHINESE Tel:+22467118646 webs www.africalocalgoldminers.webs.com E-mail: [email protected] Rue DI 519 Conakry Republique de Guinee Best Regard Mr john dabo",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "747d0919801affbdccb59eba840be91f",
"text": "I am not really qualified to be engaged in this argument so I won't tell you why I suspect you are wrong. That said, there are many many many factors that drive productivity (which I believe is up?) and the income distribution (which I concede is a big problem). Observing that the problem started approximately concurrently with the end of the gold standard (which is arguable), is really not evidence that we should return to the gold standard. Correlation != causation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bb6f2fa37a7dadb2eecc6d87c3f65f2",
"text": "\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \"\"truth\"\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac3f9a457db7f58af6e800ebb6250a00",
"text": "It is a shame that really insightful article is wrapped up in a paranoid wrapper. It is all accurate, IMO and is basically the worldview I use when I trade markets. Except I don't get all fixated on gold. I see gold as just one tool out of many for exploiting the exploiters.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53797b151ae0daf43edf5e83c4fc64bd",
"text": "The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "496bc8c184def81836ac19d3315ff668",
"text": "\"Comission is a must when doing sales. That is the best (and only good) incentive to sell more. How much you want to give all depends on margins, the salary level that is accepted in your state/country and what sellers you have (young or old). Salary costs at 30 - 35% of total order value is normal including salary tax and all tax oriented costs around that employee. There are 2 ways of doing it. Only high commission and fixed salary + lower commission. Even if you use fixed salary + commission you can have \"\"restrictions\"\" so they have to sell above a certain level to get that commission. That means that you don't take any risks. An example of a salary model that I found was popular. (The numbers are just made up according to what is normal to have in Sweden). It's a step-model. If you sell for: Step 1: 0 - $3000 you get high commission 20% of everything you sell Step 2: $3000 - $4000 you get fixed salary of $1000 + 10% commission Step 3: $4000 - $6000 you get fixed salary of $1700 + 15% commission And so on. Your weakest points are when going to a higher step. You have to change the steps so it works with your salary statistics so you have most people under a step to motivate them to go to the next instead of having them exactly above one step. As you can see, with a step model, you just put a disquise on the commission model but make it more attractive. What the seller think is that they have a fixed salary. If a seller is happy, he/she is selling a lot. I have also had a criteria saying that if you can keep youself at 1 step for more than 3 months you will start there each month. Then it's up to the team leader to warn if that seller IS good or just LUCKY.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1e31c0a10ca632844786eb12a4497e3",
"text": "The company will have to pay 20% tax on its profits. Doesn't matter how these profits are earned. Profits = Income minus all money you spend to get the income. However, you can't just take the profits out of the company. The company can pay you a salary, on which income tax, national insurance, and employer's national insurance have to be paid at the usual rate. The company can pay you a dividend, on which tax has to be paid. And the company can pay money into the director's pension fund, which is tax free. Since the amount of company revenue can be of interest, I'd be curious myself what the revenue of such a company would be. And if the company makes losses, I'm sure HMRC won't allow you to get any tax advantages from such losses.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
913d36a8030285ca25b9d0e39c646f21
|
Totally new to finance, economy, where should I start?
|
[
{
"docid": "ba6dfeb344202e59f5c6b285133567aa",
"text": "A couple of good books I enjoyed and found very understandable (regarding the stock market): As for investment information you can get lost for days in Investopedia. Start in the stock section and click around. The tutorials here (free) give a good introduction to different financial topics. Regarding theoretical knowledge: start with what you know well, like your career or your other interests. You'll get a running start that way. Beyond that, it depends on what area of finance you want to start with. If it's your personal finances, I and a lot of other bloggers write about it all the time. Any of the bloggers on my blogroll (see my profile for the link) will give you a good perspective. If you want to go head first into planning your financial life, take a look at Brett Wilder's The Quiet Millionaire. It's very involved and thorough. And, of course, ask questions here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a9e85fef9a7ce8d96c6130af5e3c8ef",
"text": "If you're looking to invest using stocks and shares, I recommend you set up an account at something like Google Finance - it is free and user-friendly with lots of online help. You can set up some 'virtual cash' and put it into a number of stocks which it'll track for you. Review your progress and close some positions and open others as often as you want, but remember to enter some figure for the cost of the transaction, say $19.95 for a trade, to discourage you from high-frequency trading. Take it as seriously as you want - if you stick to your original cash input, you'll see real results. If you throw in more virtual cash than you could in real life, it'll muddle the outcome. After some evaluation period, say 3 months, look back at your progress. You will learn a tremendous amount from doing this and don't need to have read any books or spent any money to get started. Knowing which stocks to pick and when to buy or sell is much more subtle - see other answers for suggestions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e345d081e08d6227942a8e4623a2709d",
"text": "I'd start with learning how to read a company's financial statement and their annual report. I would recommend reading the following: All three books are cheap and readily available. If you really want to enhance your learning, grab a few annual reports from companies' websites to reference as you learn about different aspects of the financial statements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ab0591bd0e809fae8e650352223ec80",
"text": "I'm going to be a bit off topic and recommend 'The Only Investment Book You'll Ever Need' by Andrew Tobias. It doesn't start with describe the workings of the stock market. Instead, it starts with making sure you have a budget and have your basic finances in order BEFORE going into the stock market. This may not sound like what you are looking for, but it really is a valuable book to read, even if you think you are all set up in that department.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d9e7d3106f9e19ea20ac6488b0aab00f",
"text": "Here's a very good series of classroom lectures by Robert Schiller, one of America's top economists and a prof at Yale: http://www.youtube.com/user/YaleCourses#g/c/8F7E2591EE283A2E This should give you some general insight into basic principles of finance and give you a framework to learn more later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4acb25e5b3c6f679fac607e6eabfdf5e",
"text": "\"Before anything else, read up on the basics of economics. After that, there a few things you need to ask yourself before you even think about investing in anything: If you have an answer to those questions: Once you answered those questions I could make a simple first suggestion: Confident in handling it yourself and low maintenance with uncertain horizon: look up an online bank that offers ETFs such as IWDA (accumulation (dividend is not payed but reinvested) or income(dividend is payed out)) and maybe a few more specific ones then buy and hold for at least 5 years. Confident and high maintenance with long horizon: maybe stock picking but you'll probably never be able to beat the market unless you invest 10's of hours in research per week. However this will also cost a bit and given your initial amount not advisable to do. Be sure that you also have a VERY close look at the prospectus of an investment (especially if you go with a (retail) bank and they \"\"recommend\"\" you certain actively traded funds). They tend to charge you quite a bit (yearly management fees of 2-3% (which is A LOT if you are eying maybe 7%-8% yearly) aren't unheard of). ETF's such IWDA only have for example a yearly cost of 0.20%. Personally I have one portfolio (of many) only consisting of that ETF (so IWDA) and one global small cap. It's one of the best and most consistant ones to date. In the end, the amount you start with doesn't really matter so much as long as it's enough to buy at least a few shares of what you have in mind. If you can then increase your portfolio over time and keep the expenses in check, compounding interest should do the rest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30ded7213c03e1556cc25ef660c4b211",
"text": "As for when it's due - I don't know of any indicators of the top of my head. I'm sure you can find out with a bit of googlefu As for when economics starts and finance ends it's hard to explain in simple terms. Think about everything in an economy as 'acticity done by people'. Economics tries to study these activities (by governments, individuals and firms). It sounds like you're interested in this side more than the finance side so I'd highly recommend looking up Kahn academy videos in micro and macro economics. Finance is sort of a study of the measure of economic activity (MEASURING the bonds the government's or firms issue etc). Lastly I like listening to podcasts so it might be something you're interested in as well. Maybe check out some of the Bloomberg podcasts and others on the economy",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36020f99bd41497d61a909b12d82d792",
"text": "\"Thank you I am obviously pretty new and just starting to learn about it. As I am declaring finance my major in the fall. Edit: How do I go about trading options is it a viable route for some \"\"broke\"\" college kid?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "362077d02a7056589fbe1c25e18915f3",
"text": "\"Check out Irwin Schiff's \"\"How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't\"\". It explains how economy's work using a comic format, explaining investment, savings, banking, gov't, taxation,etc, although you may need to be at least 10 to understand some of the concepts. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7c88a34a19c3733628f3d876b4824f0",
"text": "My two cents: I, like many people in finance, got into it for the money. However, I like many other people, found myself liking it for intrinsic reasons once I got into it. I genuinely enjoy learning about financial theory, economics, understanding how global markets work, following the different story lines for the EU/US/Asian economies, working on financial models, reading the WSJ, keeping up to date on new earning releases, analyzing investments, learning about companies/industries, etc. But I never would have found out that I liked these things unless I had chosen to study them and the only reason I chose to study them in the first place was because I wanted to make money. I'd take an intro finance class and see if it seems like something that could grow on you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cca11597f033094de9dde4e75ebbf1a",
"text": "Investopedia, Khan academy, Udemy, and corsea are good places to start. You tube has some good videos too. I imagine if you are looking to impress in a job interview you mostly want to know the concepts. Finance is all about future cash flow. Understand the important ratios and how they effect cash flow. Ronald Sweet has a good video on YouTube that sums up finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef4a8e1d1b252475ab3a0baefe7eb5e8",
"text": "\"I am sorry to hear that. Well, finance is a VERY large field encompassing decades upon decades of research, and thousands of pages of research. This question is usually a difficult one to answer simply because of the scope. My usual answer to people is to browse around this sub and the internet and learn from that, and then for specific questions to ask. For your purposes, take a look at investopedia.com. While here it's an \"\"okay\"\" source, for a beginner I think it's a good place to start. Is there any specific thing you have a question about now? I know you mentioned the Big Short and some other things. Just keep in mind anything coming from Hollywood will be *extremely* biased.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f4d2782016a99449f0364ecead401b2",
"text": "https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/most-important-finance-books-2017-1 Bloomberg, finacial times, chat with traders, calculated risk, reuters, wsj, cnbc(sucks), bnn (if canadian) Audio books on youtube helped me read a lot of finance books in a short amount of time, listen while working out. One thing that helped me stand out at my student terms (4th year here) was learning outside of the classroom and joining an investment club. Learning programming can help if thats a strength, but its really not needed and it can waste time if yoi wont reach a point to build tools. Other than that at 18 you have more direction than i did, good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8caa273e50f298bef1b233c6ff8cb8b6",
"text": "\"Since you have something of a background in econ, I'd check out the iTunes University \"\"Financial Theory\"\" course provided by Yale University. http://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/financial-theory-video/id428500350 It starts off with the basics (time value of money, general equilibrium) and gets into some pretty topical issues -- dynamic hedging, mortgage backed securities, and so on. It's definitely an economics-focused course though, so there isn't going to be much coverage of more mathsy topics such as martingale pricing theory.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cf6037c68fe46a7914b798417e10e48",
"text": "Something that introduces the vocabulary and treats the reader like an intelligent individual? It's a bit overkill for 'retirement', but Yale has a free online course in Financial Markets. It's very light on math, but does a good job establishing jargon and its history. It covers most of the things you'd buy or sell in financial markets, and is presented by Nobel Prize winner Robert Schiller. This particular series was filmed in 2007, so it also offers a good historical perspective of the start of the subprime collapse. There's a number of high profile guest speakers as well. I would encourage you to think critically about their speeches though. If you research what's happened to them after that lecture, it's quite entertaining: one IPO'd a 'private equity' firm that underperformed the market as a whole, another hedge fund manager bought an airline with a partner firm that was arrested for running a ponzi scheme six months later. The reading list in the syllabus make a pretty good introduction to the field, but keep in mind they're for institutional investors not your 401(k).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df9ab79001c00f515a3dc8ee69f05872",
"text": "I'm not really sure yet. I know I'm beginning my upper level finance courses (Corp. Finance & Investments this Autumn) so I am going to try and see what I like. Investments have always attracted me but I have to experience it before I can say what I would like. I'm really open to anything. I know excel quite well (thought of getting Microsoft certified to put on resume) and stats have always been fun for me. I took 2 intro to accounting courses but have forgotten most of the material. Is there any part of accounting you recommend is valuable (auditing, financial acct, reporting & financial statements, etc.; maybe any course suggestions bc I know Ohio State Uni has multiple courses on different acct topics)?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "224764f40c7bafa68725d22ab97c0492",
"text": "try over in /r/personalfinance Economics is about understanding the economy and how it works. Investing is about taking your money and putting it somewhere useful. They're related; but what you want probably isn't economy-wide advice, but specific individual options. FYI, they'll recommend you get into some index fund to start; one that just tracks a big index like the Dow Jones, Nasdaq, or S&P 500. These help diversify your risk and tend to offer good returns. But, a lot depends on what your personal situation entails, so head on over there and read their FAQ.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "397220883f559435621d173d3f45c35c",
"text": "You're asking for a LOT. I mean, entire lives and volumes upon volumes of information is out there. I'd recommend Benjamin Graham for finance concepts (might be a little bit dry...), *A Random Walk Down Wall Street,* by Burton Malkiel and *A Concise Guide to Macro Economics* by David Moss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26756dc751c14860d859dbceebb51ea4",
"text": "\"Living in one unit of a multi-family while renting out the others, although not without its risks, can be a viable (if gradual) way to build wealth. It's been rebranded recently as \"\"house hacking\"\", but the underlying mechanics have been around for many years (many cities in the Northeast in particular remain chock full of neighborhoods of 3-family homes built and used for exactly that purpose for decades, though now frequently sub-divided into condos). It's true you'd need to borrow money, but there are a number of reasons why it's certainly at least worth exploring (which is what you seem to be asking -- should you bother doing the homework -- tl;dr: yes): And yes, you would be relying on tenants to meet your monthly expenses, including a mortgage bill that will arrive whether the other units are vacant or not. But in most markets, rental prices are far less volatile than home prices (from the San Francisco Federal Reserve): The main result from this decomposition is that the behavior of the price-rent ratio for housing mirrors that of the price-dividend ratio for stocks. The majority of the movement of the price-rent ratio comes from future returns, not rental growth rates. (Emphasis added) It's also important to remember that rental income must do more than just cover your mortgage -- there's lots of other expenses associated with a rental property, including insurance, taxes, maintenance, vacancy (an allowance for the periods when the property will be empty in between tenants), reserves for capital improvements, and more. As with any investment, it's all about whether the numbers work. (You mentioned not being interested in the \"\"upkeep work\"\", so that's another 8-10% off the top to pay for a property manager.) If you can find a property at an attractive price, secure financing on attractive terms, and can be reasonably confident that it will rent in the ballpark of 1.5-2% of the purchase price, then it might be a fine choice for you, assuming you are willing and able to handle the work of being a landlord -- something worth at least as much of your research time as the investment itself. It sounds like you're still a ways away from having enough for even an FHA down payment, which gives you a great opportunity to find and talk with some local folks who already manage rental properties in your area (for example, you might look for a local chapter of the national Real Estate Investment Association), to get a sense of what's really involved.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3dc6a773e07f2db915d28fad7ad61657
|
How should residents of smaller economies allocate their portfolio between domestic and foreign assets?
|
[
{
"docid": "e5edb2b7684003ea4f01ab69a4c02e39",
"text": "why should I have any bias in favour of my local economy? The main reason is because your expenses are in the local currency. If you are planning on spending most of your money on foreign travel, that's one thing. But for most of us, the bulk of our expenses are incurred locally. So it makes sense for us to invest in things where the investment return is local. You might argue that you can always exchange foreign results into local currency, and that's true. But then you have two risks. One risk you'll have anywhere: your investments may go down. The other risk with a foreign investment is that the currency may lose value relative to your currency. If that happens, even a good performing investment can go down in terms of what it can return to you. That fund denominated in your currency is really doing these conversions behind the scenes. Unless the bulk of your purchases are from imports and have prices that fluctuate with your currency, you will probably be better off in local investments. As a rough rule of thumb, your country's import percentage is a good estimate of how much you should invest globally. That looks to be about 20% for Australia. So consider something like 50% local stocks, 20% local bonds, 15% foreign stocks, 5% foreign bonds, and 10% local cash. That will insulate you a bit from a weak local currency while not leaving you out to dry with a strong local currency. It's possible that your particular expenses might be more (or less) vulnerable to foreign price fluctuations than the typical. But hopefully this gives you a starting point until you can come up with a way of estimating your personal vulnerability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb3abcd14a58afbb8f891284510f413",
"text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6c3402dd0d189413abfe4f770d824778",
"text": "So far we have a case for yes and no. I believe the correct answer is... maybe. You mention that most of your expenses are in dollars which is definitely correct, but there is an important complication that I will try to simplify greatly here. Many of the goods you buy are priced on the international market (a good example is oil) or are made from combinations of these goods. When the dollar is strong the price of oil is low but when the dollar is weak the price of oil is high. However, when you buy stuff like services (think a back massage) then you pay the person in dollars and the person you are paying just wants dollars so the strength of the dollar doesn't really matter. Most people's expenses are a mix of things that are priced internationally and locally with a bias toward local expenses. If they also have a mix of investments some of which are international and depend on the strength of the dollar and some are domestic and do not, then they don't have to worry much about the strength/weakness of the dollar later when they sell their investments and buy what they want. If the dollar is weak than the international goods will be more expensive, but at the same time international part of their portfolio will be worth more. If you plan on retiring in a different country or have 100% of your investments in emerging market stocks than it is worth thinking about either currency hedging or changing your investment mix. However, for many people a good mix of domestic and international investments covers much of the risk that their currency will weaken while offering the benefits of diversification. The best part is you don't need to guess if the dollar will get stronger or weaker. tl;dr: If you want your portfolio to not depend on currency moves then hedge. If you want your retirement to not depend on currency moves then have a good mix of local and unhedged international investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85e308f5578c0e21d72ce7e1102351cf",
"text": "You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO. If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "148655328c8d30bc3d0e2bb245e2a408",
"text": "I think a greater problem would be the protection of your property right. China hasn't shown much respect for the property rights of its own citizens - moving people off subsistence farms in order to build high-rise apartments - so I'm not certain that a foreigner could expect much protection. A first consideration in any asset purchase should always be consideration of the strength of local property law. By all accounts, China fails.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df91c47eafc6397732ede7d8f2fe2602",
"text": "\"You are mixing issues here. And it's tough for members to answer without more detail, the current mortgage rate in your country, for one. It's also interesting to parse out your question. \"\"I wish to safely invest money. Should I invest in real estate.\"\" But then the text offers that it's not an investment, it's a home to live in. This is where the trouble is. And it effectively creates 2 questions to address. The real question - Buy vs Rent. I know you mentioned Euros. Fortunately, mortgages aren't going to be too different, lower/higher, and tax consequence, but all can be adjusted. The New York Times offered a beautiful infographing calculator Is It Better to Rent or Buy? For those not interested in viewing it, they run the math, and the simple punchline is this - The home/rent ratio can have an incredibly wide range. I've read real estate blogs that say the rent should be 2% of the home value. That's a 4 to 1 home/rent (per year). A neighbor rented his higher end home, and the ratio was over 25 to 1. i.e. the rent for the year was about 4% the value of the home. It's this range that makes the choice less than obvious. The second part of your question is how to stay safely invested if you fear your own currency will collapse. That quickly morphs into too speculative a question. Some will quickly say \"\"gold\"\" and others would point out that a stockpile of weapons, ammo, and food would be the best choice to survive that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "296b7a2e96d632ad86e69f69b97d10fe",
"text": "It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here. A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments. My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities. Government bonds earn way too little. The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity. I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it. My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people. If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap. If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "135a2e56bf522c48f2db3566edca2a69",
"text": "A foreign stock mutual fund definitely belongs in stocks. It's composed of stocks. Your self occupied house is definitely real estate. You don have to keep in mind,however that selling it would create costs such as rent. I wouldn't leave it out, if doing that would cause you to buy more real estate. This would cause you to be overweighted in the real estate area. I would tend to think if a CD as cash. While it could be considered a bond, as you said the principal doesn't go down. The REIT is the toughest one. I would really like to see a graph showing how correlated it is to the real estate market. That would determine where I would put it.",
"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": "2de9276a87b1cfd4b291753649b1e2a3",
"text": "There's a few different types of investments you could do. As poolie mentioned, you could split your money between the Vanguard All World ex-US and Vanguard Total Stock Market index. A similar approach would be to invest in the Vanguard Total World Stock ETF. You wouldn't have to track separate fund performances, at the downside of not being able to allocate differential amounts to the US and non-US markets (Vanguard will allocate them by market cap). You could consider investing in country-specific broad market indices like the S&P 500 and FTSE 100. While not as diversified as the world indices, they are more correlated with the country's economic outlook. Other common investing paradigms are investing in companies which have historically paid out high dividends and companies that are under-valued by the market but have good prospects for future growth. This gets in the domain of value investing, which an entire field by itself. Like Andrew mentioned, investing in a mutual fund is hassle-free. However, mutual fees/commissions and taxes can be higher (somewhere in the range 1%-5%) than index funds/ETF expense ratios (typically <0.50%), so they would have to outperform the market by a bit to break-even. There are quite a few good books out there to read up about investing. I'd recommend The Intelligent Investor and Millionaire Teacher to understand the basics of long-term investing, but of course, there are many other equally good books too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18592d5b1726ea3a530fbe0804392bad",
"text": "Do developing country equities have a higher return and/or lower risk than emerging market equities? Generally in finance you get payed more for taking risk. Riskier stocks over the long run return more than less risky bonds, for instance. Developing market equity is expected to give less return over the long run as it is generally less risky than emerging market equity. One way to see that is the amount you pay for one rupee/lira/dollar/euro worth of company earnings is fewer rupees/lira and more dollars/euros. when measured in the emerging market's currency? This makes this question interesting. Risky emerging currencies like the rupee tend to devalue over time against less risky currencies euro/dollars/yen like where most international investment ends up, but the results are rather wild. Think how badly Brazil has done recently and how relatively well the rupee has been doing. This adds to the returns (roughly based on interest rates) of foreign stocks from the point of view of a emerging market investor on average but has really wild variations. Do you have data for this over a long timeframe (decades), ideally for multiple countries? Not really, unfortunately. Good data for emerging markets is a fairly new phenomenon and even where it does exist decades ago it would have been very hard to invest like we can now so it likely is not comparable. Does foreign equity pay more or less when measured in rupees (or other emerging market currency)? Probably less on average (theoretically and empirically) all things included though the evidence is not strong, but there is a massive amount of risk in a portfolio that is 85% in a single emerging market currency. Think about if you were a Brazilian and needed to retire now and 85% of your portfolio was in the Real. International goods like gas would be really expensive and your local currency portfolio would seem paltry right now. If you want to bet on emerging markets in the long run I would suggest that you at least spread the risk over many emerging markets and add a good chunk developed to the mix. As for investing goals, it's just to maximize my return in INR, or maximize my risk-adjusted return. That is up to you, but the goal I generally recommend is making sure you are comfortable in retirement. This usually involves looking for returns are high in the long run, but not having a ton of risk in a single currency or a single market. There are reasons to believe a little bias toward your homeland is good as fees tend to be lower on local investments and local investments tend to track closer to your retirement costs, but too much can be very dangerous even for countries with stronger currencies, say Greece.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59f54cbaa67b1798e28fbcb031da4510",
"text": "\"The term \"\"stock\"\" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument. Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons. Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "c5e0d911af62091f18a6573283d3b230",
"text": "would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? This is primarily opinion based. Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup There is no way to predict what will happen in such large events. For example if one keeps funds outside on UK in say Germany in Euro's. The UK may bring in a regulation and clamp down all funds held outside of UK as belonging to Government or tax these at 90% or anything absurd that negates the purpose of keeping funds outside. There are example of developing / under developed economics putting absurd capital controls. Whether UK will do or not is a speculation. If you are going to spend your live in a country, it is best to invest in country. As normal diversification, you can look at keep a small amount invested outside of country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a60e5b4f3373df169d9c71b7bff93859",
"text": "It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term. The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss. If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce. It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce9537c51f2349ef3b2921eeeec8a658",
"text": "It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f86975dd87e90730ed4af18e94a1174",
"text": "I think part of the confusion is due to the age of the term and how money has changed over time relative to being backed by precious metals vs using central banks etc. Historically: Because historically the coin itself was precious metal, if a change occurred between the 'face value' of the coin and value of the precious metal itself, the holder of the coin was less affected since they have the precious metal already in hand. They could always trade it based on the metal value instead of the face value. OTOH if you buy a note worth an the current price of ounce of gold, and the price of gold goes up, and then the holder wants to redeem the note, they end up with less than an ounce of gold. In the more modern age The main concern is the cost to borrow funds to put money into circulation, or the gain when it goes out of circulation. The big difference between the two is that bills tend stay in circulation until they wear out, have to be bought back and replaced. Coins on the other hand last longer, but have a tendency to drop out of circulation due to collectors (especially with 'collectible series' coins that the mint seems to love to issue lately). This means that bills issued tend to stay in circulation, while only a percentage of coins stays in circulation. So the net effect on the money supply is different for the two, and since modern 'seigniorage' is all about the cost to put money in circulation, it is different in the case of coins where some percentage will not remain circulating.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3ac00b6844710ccdb5ec38e2b92cb007
|
How can a 'saver' maintain or increase wealth in low interest rate economy?
|
[
{
"docid": "3c4db89839bf06a8c684257ea8615b86",
"text": "\"Since the other answers have covered mutual funds/ETFs/stocks/combination, some other alternatives I like - though like everything else, they involve risk: Example of how these other \"\"saving methods\"\" can be quite effective: about ten years ago, I bought a 25lb bag of quinoa at $19 a bag. At the same company, quinoa is now over $132 for a 25lb bag (590%+ increase vs. the S&P 500s 73%+ increase over the same time period). Who knows what it will cost in ten years. Either way, working directly with the farmers, or planting it myself, may become even cheaper in the future, plus learning how to keep and store the seeds for the next season.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b203f5e786001b6923c2aee538fae4e",
"text": "Personally, I invest in mutual funds. Quite a bit in index funds, some in capital growth & international.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ab2573cad4bde03574e290f5e8ed6ac",
"text": "\"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d86cb91597b6cbdd5135c07d89d5e0db",
"text": "More money doesn't make people richer in the sense that if the govt gave every citizen a $1 they would all still have the same amount of wealth and purchasing power, but their nominal value in dollar terms would be $1 higher. Money is just the denominator in exchange, so lets say a bicycle is $100 and a scooter is $200, you know that 2 bikes equals 1 scooter. So printing $100 for people to each buy a bicycle will just make the price of bikes go up, and they'll end up costing much more than $100, so no real wealth has been created. The main problem that I think you're trying to identify i that we've had an over-expansion of credit by central banks around the world. The scarcity of credit is a good thing because it forces only the best, most productive ideas to be allowed to be undertaken. If a bank only has $10 to loan, and business man A can use that to have a return of 50%, business man B can have 25%, and business man C can have 5%, then the obvious choice is to give the loan to business man A because he is using the resources most productively, and depending on the details of his business model, is the least risky person to loan to (ie the bank is most assured he will be able to pay his money back). But with central banks controlling interest rates, and reserve requirements for banks, the banks can lever themselves up and lend out much more money than they've taken in. After all if a bank can finance its reserves with low interest rates, but make additional money from increased lending, then they are incentivised to seek higher profits. Especially with the FDIC insuring everyone's bank deposits. So now businessmen A, B and C all get their loans and are able to start their businesses, but they're all in the same line of work and need to utilize the same resources. So now instead of just businessman A buying materials he has two other buyers looking to utilize a scarce amount of resources. The price of those resources is now higher since supply is limited but demand has tripled. So now businessman A can only make 40% through his business, B can make 5% and businessman C loses money in his venture. A and B pay their loan back but C is unable to. Ignoring interest, for the sake of simplicity, the bank has essentially broken even. Before leveraging up they loaned out $10 and got back $10. After leveraging they loaned out $30 and got back 20. So the problem you're seeing is excessive credit permitting ventures to be undertaken that should not have been allowed to be. The problem is interest rates that are not set by the market, but by a centralized bureau who couldn't possibly have enough information to determine what the cost of financing should be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af9e3804fe0ba09f7a01b49f444fe670",
"text": "\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Low rates and QE were intended to help revive a stalled economy, but unfortunately, demand has not risen, but rather, the velocity of money has dropped like a rock. At some point, we will see the economy recover and the excess money in the system will need to be removed to avoid the inflation you suggest may occur. Of course, as rates rise to a more normal level, the price of all debt will adjust. This question may not be on topic for this board, but if we avoid politics, and keep it close to PF, it might remain.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f36c05d8eff0f82f58f3cdf2cc742d0",
"text": "The safest investment in the United States is Treasures. The Federal Reserve just increased the short term rate for the first time in about seven years. But the banks are under no obligation to increase the rate they pay. So you (or rather they) can loan money directly to the United States Government by buying Bills, Notes, or Bonds. To do this you set up an account with Treasury Direct. You print off a form (available at the website) and take the filled out form to the bank. At the bank their identity and citizenship will be verified and the bank will complete the form. The form is then mailed into Treasury Direct. There are at least two investments you can make at Treasury Direct that guarantee a rate of return better than the inflation rate. They are I-series bonds and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). Personally, I prefer the I-series bonds to TIPS. Here is a link to the Treasury Direct website for information on I-series bonds. this link takes you to information on TIPS. Edit: To the best of my understanding, the Federal Reserve has no ability to set the rate for notes and bonds. It is my understanding that they can only directly control the overnight rate. Which is the rate the banks get for parking their money with the Fed overnight. I believe that the rates for longer term instruments are set by the market and are not mandated by the Fed (or anyone else in government). It is only by indirect influence that the Fed tries to change long term rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a0eec08c6dc5f325bd54e3dfe206026",
"text": "\"Other people have already demonstrated the effect of compound interest to the question. I'd like to add a totally different perspective. Note that the article says if you can follow this simple recipe throughout your working career, you will almost certainly beat out most professional investors [...] you'll likely accumulate enough savings to retire comfortably. (the latter point may be the more practical mark than the somewhat arbitrary million (rupees? dollars?) My point here is that the group of people who do put away a substantial fraction of their (lower) early wages and keep them invested for decades show (at least) two traits that will make a very substantial difference to the average (western) person. They may be correlated, though: people who are not tempted or able to resist the temptation to spend (almost) their whole income may be more likely to not touch their savings or investments. (In my country, people like to see themselves as \"\"world champions in savings\"\", but if you talk to people you find that many people talk about saving for the next holidays [as opposed to saving for retirement].) Also, if you get going this way long before you are able to retire you reach a relative level of independence that can give you a much better position in wage negotiations as you do not need to take the first badly paid job that comes along in order to survive but can afford to wait and look and negotiate for a better job. Psychologically, it also seems to be easier to consistently keep the increase in your spending below the increase of your income than to reduce spending once you overspent. There are studies around that find homeowners on average substantially more wealthy than people who keep living in rental appartments (I'm mostly talking Germany, were renting is normal and does not imply poverty - but similar findings have also been described for the US) even though someone who'd take the additional money the homeowner put into their home over the rent and invested in other ways would have yielded more value than the home. The difference is largely attributed to the fact that buying and downpaying a home enforces low spending and saving, and it is found that after some decades of downpayment homeowners often go on to spend less than their socio-economic peers who rent. The group that is described in this question is one that does not even need the mental help of enforcing the savings. In addition, if this is not about the fixed million but about reaching a level of wealth that allows you to retire: people who have practised moderate spending habits as adults for decades are typically also much better able to get along with less in retirement than others who did went with a high consumption lifestyle instead (e.g. the homeowners again). My estimate is that these effects compound in a way that is much more important than the \"\"usual\"\" compounding effect of interest - and even more if you look at interest vs. inflation, i.e. the buying power of your investment for everyday life. Note that they also cause the group in question to be more resilient in case of a market crash than the average person with about no savings (note that market crashes lead to increased risk of job loss). Slightly off topic: I do not know enough how difficult saving 50 USD out of 50 USD in Pakistan is - and thus cannot comment whether the savings effort called for in the paper is equivalent/higher/lower than what you achieve. I find that trying to keep to student life (i.e. spending that is within the means of a student) for the first professional years can help kick-starting a nest egg (European experience - again, not sure whether applicable in Pakistan).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc2a6b19f5982a16f98ead1fe326ba63",
"text": "This question is likely to be voted closed as opinion-based. That said - In general people have become accustomed to instant gratification. They also have the media showing them luxury and are enticed every day to buy things they don't need. In the US, the savings rate is awfully low, but it's not just the lower 50%, it's 75% of people who aren't saving what they should. see http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/pfeffer-danziger-schoeni_wealth-levels.pdf for an interesting article on the topic of accumulated wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aefe743b20c09ba211183e7b92a884ed",
"text": "Increasing rates from .75% to 1% is an attempt to control debt. The new 1% rate drives down demand for bonds based on the old .75% rate and drives down demand for stocks who have decrease profit because they pay more interest on debt. This is the federal reserves primary tool controling inflation. 1% is what the banks pay to borrow money, they base their lending rates on this 1% figure. If a person can guarantee a .75% return on money borrowed at 1%, they will opt to save and instead lend their money out at 1%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e07c617f1278b936ca41ad293ffd4b98",
"text": "Based on your question, I am going to assume your criterion are: Based on these, I believe you'd be interested in a different savings account, a CD, or money market account. Savings account can get you up to 1.3% and money market accounts can get up to 1.5%. CDs can get you a little more, but they're a little trickier. For example, a 5 year CD could get up to 2%. However, now you're money is locked away for the next few years, so this is not a good option if this money is your emergency fund or you want to use it soon. Also, if interest rates increase then your money market and savings accounts' interest rates will increase but your CD's interest rate misses out. Conversely, if interest rates drop, you're still locked into a higher rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb68856b924b978df94ce08bea6c1a69",
"text": "\"Their high savings isn't why they have to export capital, the issue is that domestic depositors don't have access to the sky-high interest rates over the last 2 decades in China. There is definitely correlation between asset levels and debt. I miss-typed in my previous post. I meant to say that the amount of debt is overstated, precicesly because wealth is high relative to income due to the high savings rate. Ultimately, there isn't a good answer yet to your question. The seminal work (which has received many updates in the last 6 years) that first attempted to understand the disconnect between the ultra-high interest rate in China and the high levels of capital exports is called \"\"Growing Like China,\"\" by Song, Storesletten, and Zilibotti published in the American Economic Review in 2011. Global debt according to the IIF is 327% of GDP. So China is actually a little below average in terms of total debt to GDP. And when you're growing at 5%+ a year, it is okay to lever up a little bit. On top of all of this, the Chinese government is well aware of these issues and will almost certainly make some comments October 18th and over the next week about constraining debt growth. This is all complicating the issue though, when you have a huge supply of money to lend, interest rates fall and companies take on more debt. So in general you would expect savings and debt levels to move together.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "481467d7deea46bb5ea3a473c02ce5ef",
"text": "\"Pay off the credit cards. From now on, pay off the credit cards monthly. Under no circumstances should you borrow money. You have net worth but no external income. Borrowing is useless to you. $200,000 in two bank accounts, because if one bank collapses, you want to have a spare while you wait for the government to pay off the guarantee. Keep $50,000 in checking and another $50k in savings. The remainder put into CDs. Don't expect interest income beyond inflation. Real interest rates (after inflation) are often slightly negative. People ask why you might keep money in the bank rather than stocks/bonds. The problem is that stocks/bonds don't always maintain their value, much less go up. The bank money won't gain, but it won't suddenly lose half its value either. It can easily take five years after a stock market crash for the market to recover. You don't want to be withdrawing from losses. Some people have suggested more bonds and fewer stocks. But putting some of the money in the bank is better than bonds. Bonds sometimes lose money, like stocks. Instead, park some of the money in the bank and pick a more aggressive stock/bond mixture. That way you're never desperate for money, and you can survive market dips. And the stock/bond part of the investment will return more at 70/30 than 60/40. $700,000 in stock mutual funds. $300,000 in bond mutual funds. Look for broad indexes rather than high returns. You need this to grow by the inflation rate just to keep even. That's $20,000 to $30,000 a year. Keep the balance between 70/30 and 75/25. You can move half the excess beyond inflation to your bank accounts. That's the money you have to spend each year. Don't withdraw money if you aren't keeping up with inflation. Don't try to time the market. Much better informed people with better resources will be trying to do that and failing. Play the odds instead. Keep to a consistent strategy and let the market come back to you. If you chase it, you are likely to lose money. If you don't spend money this year, you can save it for next year. Anything beyond $200,000 in the bank accounts is available for spending. In an emergency you may have to draw down the $200,000. Be careful. It's not as big a cushion as it seems, because you don't have an external income to replace it. I live in southern California but would like to move overseas after establishing stable investments. I am not the type of person that would invest in McDonald's, but would consider other less evil franchises (maybe?). These are contradictory goals, as stated. A franchise (meaning a local business of a national brand) is not a \"\"stable investment\"\". A franchise is something that you actively manage. At minimum, you have to hire someone to run the franchise. And as a general rule, they aren't as turnkey as they promise. How do you pick a good manager? How will you tell if they know how the business works? Particularly if you don't know. How will you tell that they are honest and won't just embezzle your money? Or more honestly, give you too much of the business revenues such that the business is not sustainable? Or spend so much on the business that you can't recover it as revenue? Some have suggested that you meant brand or stock rather than franchise. If so, you can ignore the last few paragraphs. I would be careful about making moral judgments about companies. McDonald's pays its workers too little. Google invades privacy. Exxon is bad for the environment. Chase collects fees from people desperate for money. Tesla relies on government subsidies. Every successful company has some way in which it can be considered \"\"evil\"\". And unsuccessful companies are evil in that they go out of business, leaving workers, customers, and investors (i.e. you!) in the lurch. Regardless, you should invest in broad index funds rather than individual stocks. If college is out of the question, then so should be stock investing. It's at least as much work and needs to be maintained. In terms of living overseas, dip your toe in first. Rent a small place for a few months. Find out how much it costs to live there. Remember to leave money for bigger expenses. You should be able to live on $20,000 or $25,000 a year now. Then you can plan on spending $35,000 a year to do it for real (including odd expenses that don't happen every month). Make sure that you have health insurance arranged. Eventually you may buy a place. If you can find one that you can afford for something like $100,000. Note that $100,000 would be low in California but sufficient even in many places in the US. Think rural, like the South or Midwest. And of course that would be more money in many countries in South America, Africa, or southern Asia. Even southern and eastern Europe might be possible. You might even pay a bit more and rent part of the property. In the US, this would be a duplex or a bed and breakfast. They may use different terms elsewhere. Given your health, do you need a maid/cook? That would lean towards something like a bed and breakfast, where the same person can clean for both you and the guests. Same with cooking, although that might be a second person (or more). Hire a bookkeeper/accountant first, as you'll want help evaluating potential purchases. Keep the business small enough that you can actively monitor it. Part of the problem here is that a million dollars sounds like a lot of money but isn't. You aren't rich. This is about bare minimum for surviving with a middle class lifestyle in the United States and other first world countries. You can't live like a tourist. It's true that many places overseas are cheaper. But many aren't (including much of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). And the ones that aren't may surprise you. And you also may find that some of the things that you personally want or need to buy are expensive elsewhere. Dabble first and commit slowly; be sure first. Include rarer things like travel in your expenses. Long term, there will be currency rate worries overseas. If you move permanently, you should certainly move your bank accounts there relatively soon (perhaps keep part of one in the US for emergencies that may bring you back). And move your investments as well. Your return may actually improve, although some of that is likely to be eaten up by inflation. A 10% return in a country with 12% inflation is a negative real return. Try to balance your investments by where your money gets spent. If you are eating imported food, put some of the investment in the place from which you are importing. That way, if exchange rates push your food costs up, they will likely increase your investments at the same time. If you are buying stuff online from US vendors and having it shipped to you, keep some of your investments in the US for the same reason. Make currency fluctuations work with you rather than against you. I don't know what your circumstances are in terms of health. If you can work, you probably should. Given twenty years, your million could grow to enough to live off securely. As is, you would be in trouble with another stock market crash. You'd have to live off the bank account money while you waited for your stocks and bonds to recover.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54021fa6f8918e0f14a01e2c971c153b",
"text": "\"Note: I am making a USA-assumption here; keep in mind this answer doesn't necessarily apply to all countries (or even states in the USA). You asked two questions: I'm looking to buy a property. I do not want to take a risk on this property. Its sole purpose is to provide me with a place to live. How would I go about hedging against increasing interest rates, to counter the increasing mortgage costs? To counter increasing interest rates, obtaining a fixed interest rate on a mortgage is the answer, if that's available. As far as costs for a mortgage, that depends, as mortgages are tied to the value of the property/home. If you want a place to live, a piece of property, and want to hedge against possible rising interest rates, a fixed mortgage would work for these goals. Ideally I'd like to not lose money on my property, seeing as I will be borrowing 95% of the property's value. So, I'd like to hedge against interest rates and falling property prices in order to have a risk neutral position on my property. Now we have a different issue. For instance, if someone had opened a fixed mortgage on a home for $500,000, and the housing value plummeted 50% (or more), the person may still have a fixed interest rate protecting the person from higher rates, but that doesn't protect the property value. In addition to that, if the person needed to move for a job, that person would face a difficult choice: move and sell at a loss, or move and rent and face some complications. Renting is generally a good idea for people who (1) have not determined if they'll be in an area for more than 5-10 years, (2) want the flexibility to move if their living costs rises (which may be an issue if they lose wages), (3) don't want to pay property taxes (varies by state), homeowner's insurance, or maintenance costs, (4) enjoy regular negotiation (something which renters can do before re-signing a lease or looking for a new place to live). Again, other conditions can apply to people who favor renting, such as someone might enjoy living in one room out of a house rather than a full apartment or a person who likes a \"\"change of scenes\"\" and moves from one apartment to another for a fresh perspective, but these are smaller exceptions. But with renting, you have nothing to re-sell and no financial asset so far as a property is concerned (thus why some real estate agents refer to it as \"\"throwing away money\"\" which isn't necessarily true, but one should be aware that the money they invest in renting doesn't go into an asset that can be re-sold).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6435f24f13a0fde33b0d612aa3ee4b3d",
"text": "Firstly, make sure annual income exceeds annual expenses. The difference is what you have available for saving. Secondly, you should have tiers of savings. From most to least liquid (and least to most rewarding): The core of personal finance is managing the flow of money between these tiers to balance maximizing return on savings with budget constraints. For example, insurance effectively allows society to move money from savings to stocks and bonds. And a savings account lets the bank loan out a bit of your money to people buying assets like homes. Note that the above set of accounts is just a template from which you should customize. You might want to add in an FSA or HSA, extra loan payments, or taxable brokerage accounts, depending on your cash flow, debt, and tax situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cbcabecdc2bc42d0b03e63e79ed8048",
"text": "I think three things are happening right now: 1) The stock market is one of the only sensible places to get a return on your money. Bond rates are very low and real estate is a little trickier. 2) There are fewer publicly traded companies now than there have been in the past. It's easier to invest in public companies than private companies, so more money is going into fewer companies, inflating the prices. 3) Wealth inequality is higher now than it has been in decades. If you give poor people more money, they just spend it to lead more comfortable lives. They won't invest in the stock market. If you give a rich person more money, they just invest more of it, since they are already spending as much as they reasonably can. In this economy, for the past few decades, we've been giving the rich more and more money. So, with these 3 factors, more money is pouring into the fewer companies of the stock market, inflating their prices. (At least, this is the idea put forward by a Fidelity analyst I heard a talk from recently, and it makes sense to me).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8eea88952afaba90154a7630916d930",
"text": "\"When you say that the problem is \"\"high supply but no demand\"\" you are actually correct. Here's why: The phrase \"\"borrow/spend less, save more\"\" isn't an absolute law. It's more of a cautionary tale. Obviously, spending is an integral part of an economy: it accounts for at least 50% of every transaction! But the aphorism is getting at something other than admonishing people to not spend. The point of the saying is that interest rates should reflect savings rates. What it comes down to is the how the law of supply and demand applies to the relationship between savings and interest rates. Consider this thought experiment: in a world where everybody saves 50% of their income, what would happen to interest rates? Banks would have a glut of savings, relative to the population. Assuming demand remains constant, interest rates would go down: the price of borrowing goes down as the supply of money to be borrowed increases. Thus a corollary of the law of supply and demand is that as savings increase, interest rates tend to go down. So, as savings increase, the economic environment encourages capital improvements. Businesses can borrow at lower rates and increase long-term productive capacity. This is what the federal reserve has attempted to do by lowering the Fed Funds rate to near zero and by Operation Twist: increase economic activity through low borrowing costs. So, what's the problem? When interest rates are artificially low there are no savings to support the production later in time. A company that borrows at a 1% rate created by the feds can build a factory to make widgets, but it will have a hard time selling that widget to a population with a negative net worth. However, if the 1% rate is \"\"natural\"\", then the company should be fine: the savings of the population should support the production from his widget factory. For about 30 years we have experienced a credit boom in this country that was not created by excess savings. This trend couldn't continue forever. Look around you. At the end of the day, an economy is simply a group of people getting together to buy and sell stuff and services. Right now there is a lot of debt, and little cash. Who will be doing the buying?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce16bd0717300b2d01250b34a10b473",
"text": "Wait, if everyone isn't buying things and saving money instead, who is left to get loans to buy things at higher rates? Banks don't wag the consumer's tail. Banks will make loads more money on their variable rate loans which will hurt a lot of people. Until wages rise to incentivize buying things, loan interest rates need to be low. Only way to spur the economy is to get more money in the hands of the spenders. We keep giving it to the hoarders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddd515b9ee7e1314156eac28ec463373",
"text": "Remind me again who held and was willing to loan out that debt? The investor classes partly created the risk environment that they now want protection from. convenient. If they're going to sit on their savings, they're going to comparatively lose more to inflation, so what you think will happen probably wouldn't happen. And even if they do, savings don't receive preferential tax treatment anyways.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a9c2720c9590ab9d3d8e1b067299c38d
|
Why are some countries' currencies “weaker”?
|
[
{
"docid": "e1dafa1ea19a722a8c7f2bc88e652b2e",
"text": "1:30 is not stronger than 1:79. These are just numbers. Trading 1:120 in 2008 and 1:79 now vs. trading 1:31 in 2008 vs 1:30 now is much better criteria to look at to evaluate the strength of the currency, and if you look at that you can see that the Japanese Yen is significantly stronger than the Bhat. While Yen gained 25% to its worth, Bhat gained nothing over the same period of time. You can also see that the Yen was very consistent, while Bhat was volatile over that period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8fb271efafbf0a477901f22bb9c94d3",
"text": "\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d8f69dc0ce236b038fdcb32b0f5dc81",
"text": "\"You may as well ask why a piece of wood is 25 centimeters long but only 10 inches. Most units of measure are very arbitrary. Somebody decides that this amount of heat or distance or money is a convenient unit, and so that's what they use. Suppose that tomorrow the government issued a whole new currency that had 10 times the value of the old currency. So if you used to make 10,000 foobars a year, now you make 1,000 new foobars. And likewise the price of everything you buy is divided by 10. If a certain model car used to cost 2,000 foobars, now it costs 200 new foobars. Are you better or worse off? Clearly if ALL prices change by the same percentage, then it makes absolutely no difference. (Aside from the hassle of making the switch and getting used to the new numbers.) A currency where 1 unit of money buys more is not necessarily a \"\"stronger currency\"\". Any more than inches are \"\"better\"\" than centimeters because you get more wood for an inch than you get for a centimeter. A currency is said to be \"\"strong\"\" when it's value is stable or increasing relative to other currencies. If yesterday I could trade 10 foobars for 1 plugh, but today I only need 9 foobars to buy 1 plugh, then foobars are stronger than plughs. Even though I still need more foobars than plughs to buy the same item.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "411a0d4eb5c817cf575e82c2ed0d5c25",
"text": "It seems possible if the Euro is partially/entirely unwound that policies could be enacted to prohibit exactly this behavior, otherwise what will stop outflow to the stronger countries on a massive scale? (Thus amplifying the resulting decade-long clusterfuck) We've never had this situation in Europe before, and already for Greece and Spain there are suggestions to instigate withdrawal controls. It doesn't seem far fetched to imagine retroactive controls placed on private deposits in newly-foreign-currency banks. If I were concerned about the Euro's collapse I'd be more inclined to move assets out of the eurozone entirely",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "381ec914798b6e7bd9ca5a71455574e1",
"text": "Their biggest problem is that their main industry is shipping. Anything they could do to their currency wouldn't help the shipping industry at all. They can't even raise taxes, they aren't the only convenience flag in the world and ships are obviously very easy to move out. The only industry they have that could get any benefit from a devaluation would be tourism, but that would be mostly negated by moving out of the euro.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1138e355b81a7a8ac2647aa46a98c76",
"text": "It is interesting to consider the Netherlands which is part of the Euro zone. Germany uses 1 and 2 cent coins. Adjacent is the Netherlands where items remain priced to the cent but cash totals are rounded to the nearest 5c so 1 and 2c coins are out of circulation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd99462a2beb0902adf9f5e34c303db6",
"text": "I suppose they still could risk hyperinflation? Anyways, if they got their own currency that would probably be positive for their exports. Still, what are they going to export? Buying any raw materials would be super expensive with their devalued currency. What is your thought about their exporting with devalued currency?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2a9f83de7a08e4ab5b82c4ae39dd648",
"text": "\"I think you just don't understand what \"\"intrinsic\"\" means. It's not an opinion. It's a fact that currencies like the USD and EUR have no intrinsic value. That doesn't mean they're worthless, they just have no intrinsic value. Technically dollar COINS have intrinsic value, because they're a piece of metal that can be used for something else. Dollars itself however don't have intrinsic value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e784704c3b25e8a50f9d966eca4af8fc",
"text": "The dollar is the reserve currency of choice because the full faith and credit of the US is big, liquid, and stable compared to any currently-available alternative. The Euro and Yuan are big enough to displace the dollar (and maybe the Yen), but any fears about the dollar being subject to fickle whims of politics and policy are significantly worse with those options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c760adde250dd20b09e0e032b5bdd9d6",
"text": "When you buy a currency via FX market, really you are just exchanging one country's currency for another. So if it is permitted to hold one currency electronically, surely it must be permitted to hold a different country's currency electronically.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e75ee468fb4457c659037b01e2b93f2",
"text": "\"Then can you elaborate on what you meant by \"\"at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government\"\"? I would normally *agree* with that statement, but your use of it as a point of concern in your previous post appears to contradict what you just said.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ebda2a7bb0b077f8bc29ca0eb874729",
"text": "Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c293eedb83f25dabcb22559f40ee799b",
"text": "\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \"\"buy\"\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \"\"basket\"\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \"\"shopping list\"\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "209158c83940631e2c9f741f0da36157",
"text": "As mentioned in several other answers, the main reason for high rates is to maximize profit. However, here is another, smaller effect: The typical flow of getting money from an ATM: Suppose you have a minute to consider the offer, then in that time the currency may drop or rise (which you can see from an external source of information). Therefore this opens a window for abuse. For real major currencies these huge switches are rare, but they do happen. And when 1 or 2 minor currencies are involved these switches are more common. Just looking at a random pair for today (Botswana Pula to Haitian Gourde) I immediately spotted a moment where the exchange rate jumped by more than 2 %. This may not be the best example, but it shows why a large margin is desirable. Note that this argument only holds for when the customer knows in advance what the exchange rate would be, for cases where it is calculated afterwards I have not found any valid excuse for such large margins (except that it allows them to offer other services at a lower price because these transaction).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e445a0592214b800d5a666495d7d54d3",
"text": "It's called correlation. I found this: http://www.forexrazor.com/en-us/school/tabid/426/ID/437424/currency-pair-correlations it looks a good place to start Similar types of political economies will correlate together, opposite types won't. Also there are geographic correlations (climate, language etc)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f267f546a9aa7ca0178a43125fe42b50",
"text": "\"It's likely that the main reason is the additional currency risk for non-USD investments. A wider diversification in general lowers risk, but that has to be balanced by the risk incurred when investing abroad. This implies that the key factor isn't so much the country of residence, but the currency of the listing. Euro funds can invest across the whole Euro zone. Things become more complex when you consider countries whose currency is less trusted and whose economy is less diversified. In those cases, the \"\"currency risk\"\" may be more due to the national currency, which justifies a more global investment strategy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "483a44043abcf489a5cbc05a12eb5d2d",
"text": "I've always understood inflation to be linked to individual currencies, although my only research into the subject was an intro economics course in undergrad and I don't recall seeing why that would be the case. I guess the basic principle is that currency traders are watching the printing presses and trading in exchange markets to the point that the exchange rates fall in relation to increases in money supply. There's probably something about the carry trade in there as well, but it's late and I took some medications, so someone else will have to carry that torch. I must admit I've not really paid attention to foreign currencies like HKD, but the proximity and political relationship with China probably greatly complicates your question, since part of the problem has been China's currency peg.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d6cabbd9cca5953b2b891df6c2eb28bf
|
What is the main purpose of FED increase and decrease interest rate?
|
[
{
"docid": "298aceb6b086f2bd4e05a455c82ccb76",
"text": "When inflation is high or is rising generally interest rates will be raised to reduce people spending their money and slow down the rate of inflation. As interest rates rise people will be less willing to borrow money and more willing to keep their money earning a good interest rate in the bank. People will reduce their spending and invest less into alternative assets but instead put more into their bank savings. When inflation is too low and the economy is starting to slow down generally interest rates will be raised to encourage more spending to restart the economy again. As interest rates drop more will take their saving out of their bank accounts as is starts to earn very little in interest rate and more will be willing to borrow as it becomes cheaper to borrow. People will start spending more and investing their money outside of bank savings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "afcfaa3930781982e106f63f9e89ae04",
"text": "Why can't the Fed simply bid more than the bond's maturity value to lower interest rates below zero? The FED could do this but then it would have to buy all the bonds in the market since all other market participants would not be willing to lend money to the government only to receive less money back in the future. Not everyone has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a66ffd467cfa8743dc1cf6724f238af",
"text": "You understand that the Fed is *supposed* to make overnight loans to banks, that one of its primary jobs is to be a lender of last resort? And yes, some were foreign banks; foreign subsidies of US banks or counter-parties to large US banks. Near-zero, yes for course we're talking about *overnight* loans. The current commercial rate for overnight euro LIBOR is 0.26179%, in other words, 0.0026, near zero OMG conspiracy!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f60d0a00d26b6902b0811938684a0671",
"text": "\"Quantitative Easing Explained: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/07/130408926/quantitative-easing-explained The short of it is that you're right; the Fed (or another country's Central Bank) is basically creating a large amount of new money, which it then injects into the economy by buying government and institutional debt. This is, in fact, one of the main jobs of the central bank for a currency; to manage the money supply, which in most fiat systems involves slowly increasing the amount of money to keep the economy growing (if there isn't enough money moving around in the economy it's reflected in a slowdown in GDP growth), while controlling inflation (the devaluation of a unit of currency with respect to most or all things that unit will buy including other currencies). Inflation's primary cause is defined quite simply as \"\"too many dollars chasing too few goods\"\". When demand is low for cash (because you have a lot of it) while demand for goods is high, the suppliers of those goods will increase their price for the goods (because people are willing to pay that higher price) and will also produce more. With quantitative easing, the central bank is increasing the money supply by several percentage points of GDP, much higher than is normally needed. This normally would cause the two things you mentioned: Inflation - inflation's primary cause is \"\"too many dollars chasing too few goods\"\"; when money is easy to get and various types of goods and services are not, people \"\"bid up\"\" the price on these things to get them (this usually happens when sellers see high demand for a product and increase the price to take advantage and to prevent a shortage). This often happens across the board in a situation like this, but there are certain key drivers that can cause other prices to increase (things like the price of oil, which affects transportation costs and thus the price to have anything shipped anywhere, whether it be the raw materials you need or the finished product you're selling). With the injection of so much money into the economy, rampant inflation would normally be the result. However, there are other variables at play in this particular situation. Chief among them is that no matter how much cash is in the economy, most of it is being sat on, in the form of cash or other \"\"safe havens\"\" like durable commodities (gold) and T-debt. So, most of the money the Fed is injecting into the economy is not chasing goods; it's repaying debt, replenishing savings and generally being hoarded by consumers and institutions as a hedge against the poor economy. In addition, despite how many dollars are in the economy right now, those dollars are in high demand all around the world to buy Treasury debt (one of the biggest safe havens in the global market right now, so much so that buying T-debt is considered \"\"saving\"\"). This is why the yields on Treasury bonds and notes are at historic lows; it's bad everywhere, and U.S. Government debt is one of the surest things in the world market, especially now that Euro-bonds have become suspect. Currency Devaluation - This is basically specialized inflation; when there are more dollars in the market than people want to have in order to use to buy our goods and services, demand for our currency (the medium of trade for our goods and services) drops, and it takes fewer Euros, Yen or Yuan to buy a dollar. This can happen even if demand for our dollars inside our own borders is high, and is generally a function of our trade situation; if we're buying more from other countries than they are from us, then our dollars are flooding the currency exchange markets and thus become cheaper because they're easy to get. Again, there are other variables at play here that keep our currency strong. First off, again, it's bad everywhere; nobody's buying anything from anyone (relatively speaking) and so the relative trade deficits aren't moving much. In addition, devaluation without inflation is self-stablizing; if currency devalues but inflation is low, the cheaper currency makes the things that currency can buy cheaper, which encourages people to buy them. At the same time, the more expensive foreign currency increases the cost in dollars of foreign-made goods. All of this can be beneficial from a money policy standpoint; devaluation makes American goods cheaper to Americans and to foreign consumers alike than foreign goods, and so a policy that puts downward pressure on the dollar but doesn't make inflation a risk can help American manufacturing and other producer businesses. China knows this just as well as we do, and for decades has been artificially fixing the exchange rate of the Renmin B (Yuan) lower than its true value against the dollar, meaning that no matter how cheap American goods get on the world market, Chinese goods are still cheaper, because by definition the Yuan has greater purchasing power for the same cost in dollars. In addition, dollars aren't only used to buy American-made goods and services. The U.S. has positioned its currency over the years to be an international medium of trade for several key commodities (like oil), and the primary currency for global lenders like the IMF and the World Bank. That means that dollars become necessary to buy these things, and are received from and must be repaid to these institutions, and thus the dollar has a built-in demand pretty much regardless of our trade deficits. On top of all that, a lot of countries base their own currencies on our dollar, by basically buying dollars (using other valuable media like gold or oil) and then holding that cash in their own central banks as the store of value backing their own paper money. This is called a \"\"dollar board\"\". Their money becomes worth a particular fraction of a dollar by definition, and that relationship is very precisely controllable; with 10 billion dollars in the vault, and 20 billion Kabukis issued from Kabukistan's central bank, a Kabuki is worth $.50. Print an additional 20 billion Kabuki and the value of one Kabuki decreases to $.25; buy an additional 10 billion dollars and the Kabuki's value increases again to $.50. Quite a few countries do this, mostly in South America, again creating a built-in demand for U.S. dollars and also tying the U.S. dollar to the value of the exports of that country. If Kabukistan's goods become highly demanded by Europe, and its currency increases relative to the dollar, then the U.S. dollar gets a boost because by definition it is worth an exact, fixed number of Kabukis (and also because a country with a dollar board typically has no problem accepting dollars as payment and then printing Kabukis to maintain the exchange rate)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7573e4ed4182d7fe0dec027f67145669",
"text": "\"Wiki's not entirely accurate. My conspiracy theorist answer is because the Fed is not a government entity, it gives them increased flexibility with decreased transparency and the ability to do what is necessary to keep the currency/economy afloat under the fiat money system. A good book I found on this is Ron Paul's \"\"End the Fed\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94f4b3bad0673cfc2d66983ab898f89d",
"text": "What you said is technically correct. But the implication OP might get from that statement is wrong. If the Fed buys bonds and nominal yields go down (Sometimes they might even go up if it meant the market expected the Fed's actions to cause more inflation), inflation expectations don't go down unless real yields as measured by TIPs stay still.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e383f03888247ea2380a334c0f3734c",
"text": "\"Haha now there's two of you. I have two twits parrot squawking in my ears in stereo. Okay, so maybe you aren't from the US, in which case I can forgive your confusion and completely circular logic. You must have gone back to Wikipedia or something, because the IS and LM curves are not, in your words, operating without \"\"control by powerful offices in government.\"\" The IS and LM curve indeed cross at a level that is consistent with an equilibrium between income and expenditure's equilibirium with the money market. But that's just the label slapped on it, it's not determinative as some sort of naturally occurring law of economics in our society. No, these things don't just happen on their own. If what you're inartfully implying were true, then there would be no such thing as an expansionary or contractionary monetary policy. Manipulating and controlling the money supply is the entire reason for the existence of the Federal Reserve! What is wrong with you? Go read a book or something on it, fuck me. The Federal Reserve, by setting interest rates mainly, and by open market operations, and by less frequently changing the reserve requirements which directly controls the MONEY MULTIPLIER (you know, that thing that creates money out of thin air you seem to not be able to understand exists?) is constantly changing AGGREGATE DEMAND in the economy. Aggregate demand is what the ISLM curve is about. It's about the equilibrium between price levels and the level of economic OUTPUT DEMANDED. But not supplied. That's aggregate supply, and the Federal Reserve effects that less. But yes, you've simply expanded the scope of things I could talk about that are fucked up about banks and the Fed in particular, because the Federal Reserve, in manipulating aggregate demand for money, actually is destroying money and the efficient use of money at the same time, because the LM curve in particular really represents the relationship between REAL income and the REAL money supply. Real means not nominal, but in actual purchasing terms. The Fed is manipulating an LM curve that at its base is a piece of logic built on the assumption that what's going into it are real numbers, and yet by definition, the Fed acting to manipulate it makes those numbers not determined by purely market forces, but also by the Fed. That makes them less than real. Basically the Federal Reserve pumps up artificial levels of demand in the economy, which lasts for a bit to generate growth numbers, but in the long term it simply results in inflation and a continually delayed (at least for now) reckoning where the artificial demand (i.e. the government's ability to borrow) cannot be further expanded, and something has to give. This down the road would be a monetary crisis involving the US dollar being knocked off its perch as the world's primary reserve currency, and the yields on Treasuries skyrocketing to the point that the government is either forced to behave or else print so much money to actually cover interest payments on the debt that the flood of money into the economy causes catastrophic inflation. But anyway, my point is that you're making a circular argument, because you're saying that the Fed doesn't interfere in or exert tremendous control over the economy, because there's something that we know shows the given price level of money in an economy called the ISLM curve, falsely implying that everything's fine with money because it's determined by mechanical, natural laws, almost like gravity, when in fact the Federal Reserve's whole purpose is to manipulate the inputs that go into that curve. It reduces interest rates which artificially increases income. It also increases the velocity of money, an input for the LM curve, by increasing nominal economic output, etc. etc. The IS and LM curves are not these things that just sort of happen on their own. This may come as a shock, but the US has a central bank which has as its sole purpose the manipulation of these curves. Its central mandate is control of price levels. Its unspoken mandate is to preserve the status of the big banks on the top of society, which is why the big banks created it in the first place, and why they own all the branches (this is the root fact behind why some people say that the Federal Reserve is in fact not federal and is instead privately owned, which isn't completely literally true, but true enough in the sense that it has a clear conflict of interest between the public good it's supposed to be upholding and the private interests of the banks that own its branches and exert control over the financial system, mainly through the New York branch). But that's not the whole story about the total money supply. There's also the pyramiding effect of the money multiplier. It's as if you're just pretending these things don't exist. It's real, I assure you. Banks create money out of thin air when they extend credit to you. To pay the obligation to them, you use the real money you in fact earned through your own labor, or from some real asset you might have. They get the better end of the deal, and almost all the money in the economy is spawned by this process, this insanely exorbitant privilege they have. And yes, I have a problem with it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28187df0941807dfabb9cb1a848d3531",
"text": "\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76188a98f807d3db4916876259ef74a0",
"text": "Typically developing economics are marked by moderate to high inflation [as they are growing at a faster pace], higher in savings rate and higher lending rates. If you reduce the lending rate, more business / start-up will borrow at cheaper rate, this in turn means lowers savings rate and leads to higher inflation. To combat this Central Banks make borrowing expensive, which lowers inflation and increases the saving rate. Essentially all these 3 are tied up. As to why these countries offer higher interest on USD is because most of the developing countries have trade [current account] deficit. They need to bring in more USD in the country. One of the ways is to encourage Non Resident Citizens to park their foreign earning back home, ensuring more funds USD inflow. The rate differential also acts as a guide as to how the currency would be valued against USD. For example if you get 8% on USD, less than 12% had you converted same to Rouble, at the end of say 3 years, the exchange rate between USD and Rouble would factor that 4%, ie rouble will go down. Developed countries on the other hand are marked by low inflation [they have already achieved everything] as there is no spurt in growth, it more BAU. They are also characterized by low savings and lending rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec7d7e5c5674d90ed20fb432879d9ef9",
"text": "That's just factually incorrect. Outright lying aside, the previously mentioned contraction is after after a 2.1% Q4 and clocked in just .2% below last year's national average (a five year low). Regardless of that tiny bit of logic, the Fed has forecast a 2.9% Q2. Full employment and highest consumer confidence in years are driving it. Even worse case in that article, the forecasts are above 2.5% for the next quarter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1a9ceb43bcd442954e28400976f767e",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ceps.eu/publications/why-are-central-bankers-shifting-goalposts) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Given its comfortable position today, it is difficult to explain why the ECB is continuing unconventional monetary policy measures, such as negative interest rates or QE. The theme of this year&#039;s meeting of the world&#039;s central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, had little to do with monetary policy. > Central banks are made independent precisely because it is understood that they are accountable for achieving their own objective of maintaining price stability, regardless of the economy&#039;s underlying growth rate. > In 1999, a core inflation rate of around 2%, combined with unemployment below 5%, justified a federal funds rate of 5%. Today, the Federal Reserve has kept its benchmark rate below 1.5% - 350 basis points lower than in 1999 - and has postponed any reduction in its bloated balance sheet. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z2pql/ceps_why_are_central_bankers_shifting_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~207107 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*: **rate**^#1 **policy**^#2 **today**^#3 **inflation**^#4 **monetary**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe4cac5d97ea232f71072bed556b83c2",
"text": "Great reply. This is one of reasons why I like this subreddit. I thought that fed interest are far more important that you state. Rate is low + economy is booming (lender thinks there is good chance of repayment), banks loan money much more willingly (reserves are covered by cheap fed loans -> greater profit). That should significantly affect money supply.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8d65f6a17d78cbd91372e411f776a69",
"text": "\"You are forgetting one crucial point regarding the money supply. The US Federal Reserve increases the money supply, meaning some of the money is not really loaned, it just appears out of nowhere. At first glance this seems even worse: over the short term, the Fed changes the money supply to help the economy in whatever way it sees fit. But over the long term, the money supply increases to reflect economic growth. As new technology is introduced, more can be accomplished with the same labor and resources, and thus the money supply needs to be increased. Money is really just a convenient replacement for the barter system, so if there are more things to barter \"\"for\"\" (goods and services) then there should also be more things to barter \"\"with\"\" (money). Also keep in mind inflation. The cost of goods and services goes up over time due to the inflation of currency, and so the money supply must also be increased so that those goods and services do not artificially increase in value, which would be very bad.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf8c5a3d72f99e79d0eee15526e05b00",
"text": "This is similar to the overnight lending rate set by the US Federal Reserve Board. If money is more expensive to borrow (higher interest rate) then less will be borrowed. Commercial and consumer loan rates follow up or down via market pressures (though possibly to a lesser extent in China) to adjust to the new central bank rate. Money creation is driven in part by fractional reserve banking: banks are required to have but a small percentage of deposits on hand in cash, and the rest can be lent out, deposited in another bank that has the same fractional reserve requirement, and that money can be lent out, etc. Higher interest rates dampen this lending activity, so inflation is toned down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ee281926e6a79e88acbe72e41096f9",
"text": "\"First of all, just for the sake of clarity, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually \"\"print\"\" money - that's the job of the BEP. What they do is they buy US Treasury bonds - i.e., loan money to the US government. The money they do it with are created \"\"from thin air\"\" - just by adding some numbers in certain accounts, thus it is described as \"\"printing money\"\". The US government then spends the money however it wishes to. The idea is that this money is injected into the economy - since the only way the US government can use the money from these loans is to spend them on buying something or give it to some people that would spend them. As it is a loan, sometime in the future the US government would pay these loans back, and in this moment the Fed would decide - if they want to \"\"contract\"\" the supply of money back, they just \"\"destroy\"\" the money they've got, by erasing the numbers they created before. They could also do it by selling the bonds they hold on the open market and then again \"\"destroy\"\" the money they got as proceeds, thus lowering the amount of money existing in the economy. This way the Fed can control how much money is out there and thus supposedly influence inflation and economic activity. The Fed could also inject money in the economy by buying any assets after creating the money - for example, right now they own about a trillion dollars worth of various mortgage-based securities. But since buying specific security would probably give unfair advantage to the issuers and owners of this security, usually US treasury bonds if what they buy. The side effect of increased supply of money denominated in dollars would be, as you noted, devaluation of dollars compared to other currencies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02796cad037fa47f7f1dc2560189d293",
"text": "\"What is your biggest wealth building tool? Income. If you \"\"nerf\"\" your income with payments to banks, cable, credit card debt, car payments, and lattes then you are naturally handicapping your wealth building. It is sort of like trying to drive home a nail holding a hammer right underneath the head. Normal is broke, don't be normal. Normal obtains student loans while getting an education. You don't have to. You can work part time, or even full time and get a degree. As an example, here is one way to do it in Florida. Get a job working fast food and get your associates degree using a community college that are cheap. Then apply for the state troopers. Go away for about 5 months, earning an income the whole time. You automatically graduate with a job that pays for state schools. Take the next three years (or more if you want an advanced degree) to get your bachelors. Then start your desirable career. What is better to have \"\"wasted\"\" approx 1.5 years being a state trooper, or to have a student loan payment for 20 years? There is not even pressure to obtain employment right after graduation. BTW, I know someone who is doing exactly what I outlined. Every commercial you watch is geared toward getting you to sign on the line that is dotted, often going into debt to do so. Car commercials will tell you that you are a bad mom or not a real man if you don't drive the 2015 whatever. Think differently, throw out your numbers and shoot for zero debt. EDIT: OP, I have a MS in Comp Sci, and started one in finance. My wife also has a masters. We had debt. We paid that crap off. Work like a fiend and do the same. My wife's was significant. She planned on having her employer pay it off for each year she worked there. (Like 20% each year or something.) Guess what, that did not work out! She went to work somewhere else! Live like you are still in college and use all that extra money to get rid of your debt. Student loans are consumer debt.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
506b00c7c87c93b5f717d95be09fc321
|
What implications does having the highest household debt to disposable income ratio have on Australia?
|
[
{
"docid": "d6506e6099741d08690d3de3cfc592ce",
"text": "Stock market Tends to follow the DJIA and FTSE, so unlikely to see an Australia-only crash, especially while resources are doing so well. If China's growth slows before other ailing sectors improve, a downturn becomes more likely and the potential severity of the downturn increases. Economy A huge question to which I would refer you to Steve Keen: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ See A Fork in the Road. Housing Market It's a bubble, stupid! Seriously, it's as though the Aussies waited for the US to get done and then simply borrowed the copy book. There are a multitude of articles out there about likely outcomes from where the housing market is and where it's going. See this for a sample of what's out there: http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/07/26/aussie-housing-bubble-gets-popped-with-chinese-credit-crash/ Note: All three of the areas you raise - economy, stock mkt, housing - are so intertwined that it's tricky separating them out. A lot of reading on Steve Keen's site can help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f40189b9cd717786307791d9cf438e9",
"text": "\"I'd like to see a credible source for \"\"the highest\"\", but it's certainly fairly high. Household debt could be broadly categorized as debt for housing and debt for consumption. Housing prices seem very high compared to equivalent rental income. This is generating a great deal of debt. Keynes(?) said that \"\"if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.\"\" Just when it will stop, and whether it will stop suddenly or gradually is a matter of great interest. Obviously there are huge vested interests, including the large fraction of the population who already own property and do not wish to see it fall. Nobody really knows; my guess would be on a very-long-term plateau in nominal prices and decline in real prices. The Australian stock market is unlike the US: since it's a small country, a lot of the big companies are export-driven, either by directly exporting physical goods (miners, agriculture) or by FDI (property trusts, banks). So a local recession will hurt the stock market, but not across the board. A decline in the value of the Australian dollar would be very good news for some of these companies. Debt for consumption I think is the smaller fraction. Arguably it's driven by a wealth effect of Australia having had a reasonably good crisis with low unemployment and increasing international purchasing power. If this tops out, you'd expect to see reduced earnings for consumer discretionary companies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d84e43ee6c967d39ae7bba2a20a472b",
"text": "It is basically the same situation what US was when the crash happened. People took on debt without the means to pay, even with awful credit records. But the problem isn't the debt people take on themselves, but with the limited disposable income they have how efficiently can their debts be serviced. And how do banks who lend out money can recover their money. When banks lend money to all and sundry, they have to take care of defaults and that is when financial wizardry comes into play. In US people have the option to default on their debt and refinance it, so banks assumed default and tried to hedge their risks. If this is an option in Australia, be ready for a crash else not to worry about much. If banks continue lending expect higher inflation rates, higher interest rates and maybe a downgrade of bonds issued by the Australian government. Higher import costs and a boom in exports because of devalued Australian dollar.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "313e4455b15be5c37b5a14948b7f379b",
"text": "We are the richest nation in the history of the world. We produce and consume more now than at any point in history. Credit card debt is nowhere near historical levels. Delinquency rates on credit card loans is near the lowest it has ever been. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DRCCLACBS It may seem wild and not make a lot of sense that data does not fit your worldview, but let yourself be open to information that conflicts with your own. otherwise you are just held hostage by your own misconceptions. You are going to wait a lifetime for that riot pal and you may learn to capitalize proper nouns while you are at it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75056fd07d30862bad206916f2cc6322",
"text": "\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \"\"tax havens\"\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8aaf167eb2c41d5f96cc799f1d14288",
"text": "First of all debt is a technology that allows borrower to bring forward their spending; it's a financial time machine. From borrowers point of view debt is good when it increases overall economic utility. A young person wants to bring up a family but cannot afford the house. Had they waited for 30 years they would have reached the level of income and savings to buy the house for cash. By the time it might be too late to raise a family, sure they'd enjoy the house for the last 20 years of their life. But they would loose 30 years of utility - they could have enjoyed the house for 50 years! So, for a reasonable fee, they can bring the spending forward. Another young person might want to enjoy a life of luxury, using the magical debt time machine and bringing forward their future earnings. They might spend 10 years worth of future earnings on entertainment within a year and have a blast. Due to the law of diminishing marginal utility - all that utility is pretty much wasted, but they'll still will need to make sacrifices in the future. The trick is to roughly match the period of debt repayment to the economic life of the purchase. Buying a house means paying over 30 years for an asset that has an economic life of 80 years+, given that the interest fee is reasonable and the house won't loose it's value overnight that's a good debt. Buying a used car with a remaining life of 5 years and financing its with a seven years loan - is not a good idea. Buying a luxurious holiday that lasts a fortnight with 2 years of repayments, i.e. financing non-essential short term need with medium term debt is insane. The other question is could the required utility be achieved through a substitute at a lower cost without having to bring the spending forward or paying the associated fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d705f9393e7eb4d9507c24e6edaa7e59",
"text": "\"I'm not intimately familiar with the situation in Australia, but in the US the powers that be have adopted an interventionist philosophy. The Federal Reserve (Central Bank) is \"\"buying back\"\" US Gov't debt to keep rates low, and the government is keeping mortgage rates low buy buying mortgages with the proceeds of the cheap bond sales. While this isn't directly related to Australia, it is relevant because the largest capital markets are in the US and influence the markets in Australia. In the US, the CPI is a survey of all urban consumers. If you're a younger, middle class consumer with income growth ahead of you, your costs are going to shift more rapidly than an elderly or poor person who already owns or is in subsidized housing, and doesn't spend as much on transportation. For example, my parents are in their early 60's and are living in the house that I grew up in, which they own free and clear. There are alot of people like them, and they aren't affected by the swing in housing prices that we've seen in the last decade.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa54fda0a92cf027e4c6bb162493e245",
"text": "The higher the debt, the higher inflation needs to be to wash the debt away. This is why the debt and US equities move upward hand in hand. The same goes for US housing. Just as homeowners borrow money through mortgages so that house prices rise, the banks borrow the money for mortgages through the central banks. Thus, the cycle circulates. The more debt, the higher the prices! Everybody makes money from debt. That is why the US has the highest external debt on the globe, yet they are considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e758473b1265a4258993587b6d485ba",
"text": "It could be a a way to preserve the value of your money, but depends upon various factors. If a country defaults, and it leads to hyper-inflation, by definition that means that money loses its purchasing power. In even simpler terms, it cannot buy as much tomorrow as I could today. Therefore people can be incented to either hoard physical goods, or other non-perishable items. Real-estate may well be such an item. If you are resident in the country, you have to live somewhere. It is possible that a landlord might try to raise rent beyond what your job is willing to pay. Of course, in a house, you might have a similar situation with utilities like electricity... Assuming some kind of re-stabilization of the economy and currency, even with several more zeros on the end, it is conceivable that the house would subsequently sell for an appropriately inflation adjusted amount, as other in-demand physical goods may. Lots of variables. Good Luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c50349d81e83649bace2f0cd8b6eb62b",
"text": "\"**[More Details](http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/heavydebt.htm) . . .** * http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/heavydebt.htm **Here Are The Studies . . .** * \"\"[Were Consumer Mistakes Related to Changes in Financial Obligations Burdens?](http://www.consumerinterests.org/pdffiles/2012-conference/2012-55%20Were%20Consumer%20Mistakes%20Related%20to%20Changes%20in%20Financial%20Obligations%20Burdens.pdf)\"\" by Sherman D. Hanna, Yoonkyung Yuh, and Swarn Chatterjee: http://www.consumerinterests.org/pdffiles/2012-conference/2012-55%20Were%20Consumer%20Mistakes%20Related%20to%20Changes%20in%20Financial%20Obligations%20Burdens.pdf Via: http://www.consumerinterests.org/2012-Conference-papers.html * \"\"[Increasing financial obligations of US households: Who is affected?](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2012.01125.x/abstract)\"\" by Sherman D. Hanna, Yoonkyung Yuh, and Swarn Chatterjee: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2012.01125.x/abstract\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d9b714554609920f47430c4bc01b60a",
"text": "Could it be done? Yes, it could, subject to local law. A variant of such an approach has been suggested for those countries experiencing collapse of demand. One might consider whether whether it applied to secured loans (such as mortgages), unsecured loans, or both; whether it would be capped at a certain absolute (say £100k) or proportional (first 50%) of each mortgage; whether it would cover first homes only, or all homes; and so on. These details would radically change the feasibility and consequences of any such intervention. See the related question: https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/146/104 Such a policy of debt cancellation would have several consequences beyond initial stimulation of demand, that would need additional policies to deal with them. Inflation The resultant surge in demand would, in the absence of any other intervention, result in a massive surge in inflation. There are some interesting questions about whether this burst of inflation would be a one-off, or not. One could make an argument that as housing has become much more affordable (at least for home-owners), it would increase the downward pressure on wages, which would be in itself counter-inflationary in the medium-long term. Nevertheless, it would be injecting much more money into the economy than has been seen in QE to date, so the risks would be of extraordinarily high inflation, which might or might not get entrenched. In order to manage the short-term risk, and long-term inflation expectations, it might be necessary to incorporate a lot of tightening, either fiscal (higher taxes and/or lower public spending), or monetary: (higher interest rates, unwinding QE, new requirements for higher core capital for banks) Moral hazard There are risks of moral hazard for individuals: however, as a society, we were prepared to accept the moral hazard for financial institutions and their staff, so that may or may not be an issue: it is likely to be a question of long-term expectations. If the expectation is that this is at most a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, then the consequential risk from moral hazard ought to be lower. Excess profits to lenders Lenders will typically work on the basis of a certain proportion of defaults, so paying off all loans effectively gives them an artificial boost to their profits. Worsening balance of payments There is to a degree a prisoners' dilemma facing nations here. Pressing the reset-button on personal debt across many of the countries experiencing demand-collapse would benefit all of them. However, if just one such country were to do it alone, they alone would increase domestic demand, resulting in a large increase in imports, but no significant increase in exports.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd7d96383a07ed17787eb0485ff922ba",
"text": "Excellent summary. I'm going to steal the analogy as it is related to how I discuss the problems of austerity to people convinced it is fiscally conservative and the right thing to do when in a poor income generating situation. (I usually explain the difference as going into debt to fund better education or skills in well-researched high-demand areas, and thereby improve your earning potential, versus cutting spending until you are living in a box eating cat food thereby making it harder to get back on your feet.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2636ee8056c4b4d5e04a8ef2f3cc8782",
"text": "One super-profligate man generates several orders of magnitude less economic activity than if 100,000 families had, say $100,000 each; less than he managed to spend. 100,000 families with that much more money would all be able to eat at restaurants, buy clothes (I don't care how big his, his wives, and his 18 kids closets are; we're talking something like a thousand orders of magnitude here) buy cars, and just generally create a thousand orders of extra economic activity here; their economic activity of buying would give further jobs to the sellers of all this stuff; which would in turn be able to buy stuff, and an economy recovers. *edit spelling, grammar",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35409688081f5bdd4b825de0cdea4373",
"text": "Correct me if I am wrong (and I know you will), but in an economy where most consumers have more debt than savings, I fail to see how moderate inflation is a bad thing. Higher wages negate higher prices, and lower debt burdens free consumer demand. Why are there always people in freak out mode if it looks like inflation may occur even slightly?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4d01c772c24800876671b6bce4ed6e4",
"text": "When over the long term housing costs in a area rise faster than wages rise, the demographic of who lives in the area changes. The size and income parameters change. A region that was full of young singles is now populated with couples with adult children, that means that the businesses and amenities have to change. At a national level it isn't sustainable unless other items change. The portion of monthly income that can be safely allocated to housing would have to change. One adjustment could be the the lengthening of home loan periods, thus dropping the monthly payment. This has been seen with car loans, over the last few decades the length of loans has increased. In interesting related event could be the change in deduction of mortgage interest and property tax. If this was to change abruptly, there could be an abrupt change the estimated value of housing, because the calculus of affordability would change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a9478eb389207bfb7d974ef114821da",
"text": "Note: I am in the UK. I don't know specifically about australia but I expect the general principles will be much the same everywhere. What banks want is to be reasonablly confident that you have a steady income stream that will continue to pay the mortgate until it completes. In general employed are fairly easy to assess. Most employed people will have a steady basic pay that increases through their career. Payslips will usually seperate-out basic pay, overtime and bonuses. There is little opertunity to cook the books. The self-employed are harder to assess. Income can be bursty and there are far more opertunities for cooking the books to make it look like you are earning more than you really are. So banks are likely to be far more careful about lending to the self-employed, they will likely want to see multiple years of buisness records so that any bursts, whether natural due to the ebbs and flows of buisness or deliberatly created to cook the books average out and they can see the overall pattern. A large deposit will help because it reduces the risk to the bank in the event of a default. Similarly not being anywhere near your limit of affordability will help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f7dad9c76b1420514b4a3edc0246e6f",
"text": "The debt doesn't have to and never should be paid off. The fed could print $20T tomorrow and swap all outstanding US govt debt for cash and it would be net neutral in terms of financial assets outstanding. The result would be a massive removal of income paying assets, and near total loss of control and influence over interest rates however.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f0d259305893efee065306911adb1f5",
"text": "\"A quick online search for \"\"disadvantages of defence housing australia investment properties\"\" turns up a several articles that list a few possible disadvantages. I can't vouch for these personally because I'm not familiar with the Australian rental market, but they may all be things to keep in mind. I quote verbatim where indicated.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4d301e474c825b6db7257418009b8d8e
|
Why can't poor countries just print more money?
|
[
{
"docid": "77f0ede04c8339640fe85ae19c8c9c49",
"text": "Printing money doesn't mean that their wealth increases. It just devalues the money they already have. So it will just take more money to buy goods from another country. Printing money will also lead to over inflation which has its own set of problems such as:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "caad56ea6624dac4ebfb566becb8285e",
"text": "When the market isn't allowed to favor one currency (provider) over another, there must be a central authority with the power to regulate, provide, and insure it. People don't learn the dangers of fractional reserve banking and the resulting expansions and contractions of the money supply when the providers of the currency aren't allowed to fall, taking the savings of depositors with them. Insuring people against the dangers of mismanaged money guarantees the mismanagement of money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c4b8111a06c166734d39353af973e28",
"text": "\"If the government prints money recklessly and causes inflation, people will come to expect inflation, and the value of the currency will plummet, and you'll end up like Zimbabwe where a trillion dollars won't buy a loaf of bread. If the government actually pays people for the money they borrow, they don't have this problem - and as it turns out, the US government can get pretty good rates on borrowing in general, in part because they're extraordinarily good about paying them back. (Also, inflation expectations are low, so people will accept 1-2% interest rates. If you expected inflation of 10%, you'd see people demanding something more like 12% interest rates.) (The downside of too much of this sort of borrowing is that it \"\"crowds out\"\" other borrowing, which may harm the economy. Who would lend money to / invest in a small business, if the government is paying good money and there's almost no risk at all?) Now, inflation can come into play afterward, if the Fed decides it needs to maintain \"\"easy money\"\" policies to stimulate the economy (because taxes are too high because we're paying off the debt, or because we've crowded out smaller borrowers, or something). -- In general, you can count on the the principle that if you, as the government, try to play too many games with people's money... well, people aren't stupid; they will eventually catch on, and adjust their behavior to compensate, and then you're right back where you started, but with less trust.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1111a10783218d5f296a11a5194599b7",
"text": "Who says they don't? In the United Kingdom the Bank of England and the Bank of Scotland print the money. In some other countries (like Hong Kong, Israel, and the US) commercial banks were issuing the currency at some point of time, but now the governments do that. The problem with commercial banks issuing currency is the control. If a bank is allowed to print money - how can the amount of currency be controlled? If it is controlled by the government then the bank will be just a printing press, so what's the point? And since governments now want to control the monetary policy, banks have no reason to just be printing presses for the government, the governments have their own. edit Apparently in Hong Kong it is still the case, as I'm sure it is in some other places in the world as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d08eab8b6e109031cb05a2eb09f12c54",
"text": "The real problem is the international bubble. China for one pegs their currency against the dollar and it's banks use even more leverage than ours do. There is no safe haven for money, because everyone is printing the shit out of their money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b3e7446fd01d40d7513b4640655a667",
"text": "The way it actually works is that low-but-steady inflation (ie: printing of new dollars without any debt behind them) keeps the debts serviceable. In real life, unfortunately, too little of the money supply is printed rather than lent into existence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1afaad1d37619f8dfb7d29cf7f2d6372",
"text": "Oh, thank god. They can just print their way out! That will solve all their economic problems! Oh wait. That would just cause basic food and energy costs to skyrocket while destroying savings even more. Sure, maybe exporters would get a boon, but Japan kind of has to import a lot too. All printing money would do is make 5% of the people richer while making 95% of them poorer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "382ff86e0a2e64b85a2ea9b159e7acb3",
"text": "\"This chart summarizes the FED's balance sheet (things the FED has purchased - US treasuries, mortgage backed securities, etc.) nicely. It shows the massive level of \"\"printing\"\" the FED has done in the past two years. The FED \"\"prints\"\" new money to buy these assets. As lucius has pointed out the fractional reserve banking process also expands the money supply. When the FED buys something from Bank A, then Bank A can take the money and start lending it out. This process continues as the recipients of the money deposit the newly printed money in other fractional reserve banks. FYI....it took 95 years for the FED to print the first $900 billion. It took one year to print the next $900 billion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84a6262853386e90c69b02ca944501be",
"text": "> The issue I have with your use of Japan is that Japan has very strong exports of superior quality and low cost, we do not. That has no bearing on their sovereign debt situation though. Japan's debt is yen-denominated. Does Japan rely on the rest of the world to supply it with yen via exports? No. Japan issues the yen. >And what about South and Central American Pesos? Where you saw actual debt crises, it was countries that owed US dollars. Peg your peso to the US dollar and/or borrow US dollars and you are on the hook for US dollars which you can run out of. Let's just apply this as a general rule: any example of actual sovereign debt crisis you want to offer, before you do... look for where they're on the hook for foreign currency. You'll find it. >What about Keynes, Minsky, and the trilemma? Their central banks were completely overridden by foreign speculators. We can only choose two out of three options, peg our currency, spend to help the economy, and/or maintain free trade, not all three What I'm describing is consistent with the trilemma [triangle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity#mediaviewer/File:Impossible_trinity_diagram.svg). I'm saying the sovereign monetary policy with a floating rate currency is the one which allows a country the most policy space for responding to crisis and funding its domestic economy in general up to its own real capacity limits. I want to emphasize here that the printing press isn't some magic fountain of real wealth. Your potential real wealth is limited by what you have the real resources to produce. The idea is to fund yourself to the point where you're producing up to your own real limits of output capacity at full employment. Maximize your own potential. As opposed to adopting voluntary financial constraints which force you to leave some of that potential idle, making you poorer in real terms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f1668dd635d8fe7ec115f9818beee7c",
"text": "It's ultimately limited by how much debt people are good for, which is limited by the worth of labor. You are correct, that the fractional reserve system does not limit how much money can be created, and with just that an no requirement for new debt to be good debt, infinite money could be created.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "119a3ad16226b55f87fc67344cc171f8",
"text": "\"> but the buying power of that money can be significantly reduced to the point where it's fundamentally useless, i.e. inter-war Germany and many countries in South and Central America. That's true, but *how* does that come about? The effect on buying power stems from the level of spending in the present period. Too little leaves you anywhere from outright deflation and contraction to weaker growth falling short of capacity. Too much reaches capacity and keeps spending, bidding up prices and driving down purchasing power. It has nothing to do with debt:GDP or interest payments. > Germany managed to skate by by creating a new Deutschmark in a confidence trick, and it worked because Germany is a solid, iron clad manufacturing powerhouse of a lot of stuff. There are two important differences between inter-war Germany and the US. First is that inter-war Germany *lost a war*. This real shock is kind of important. When you're talking about buying power of money, one side of it is the amount of money in circulation but the other side of it is how much real output there is to buy and German real output capacity collapsed after the war. Their most productive regions were occupied territory and they were no longer a powerhouse manufacturing a lot of stuff, driving down the value of their currency. So lesson number one from Germany: real output collapse harms your currency. The second problem is that losing a war left Germany saddled with war reparations denominated in foreign currency. When you're on the hook for something you don't print you're in a situation where you can run out of money and that's exactly what happened to them. They tried printing more of their own currency to buy the foreign stuff with but that quickly drove down the value of German currency. So lesson number two from Germany is you don't want to be on the hook for a currency you don't issue. Put the two together and you have a real supply shock + foreign-denominated debt eviscerating the buying power of German currency. It wasn't debt:GDP but the real basis for their economy collapsing out from under them pushed along by a need for foreign currency. >My question is, at what point do we engage Washington's unlimited money printing presses until we reach that point? In answer to your question, the printing presses are what funds the real economy. The worry in terms of avoiding \"\"that point\"\" is in making sure we keep that real economy productive and fully funded. Ironically, taking our eye off the ball to focus on budget balance at the expense of real output pushes the economy in the direction you're afraid of going. See also: the euro zone today.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7542bd7f9f2297ba5a327c11f55c391c",
"text": "The only reason inflation has yet to show in the CPI is because the dollar is the global reserve currency and is the best house in a bad neighborhood, but that just means the rest of the world is becoming poorer at the same time as the U.S. - QE was 4 trillion. That's a debasement of the currency even if, for the reason I've already stated, it's not reflected in CPI.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39430e9e2b7e42a65b94a9ad0d7d55bf",
"text": "\"Correct! But this is only true when a central bank is involved. So if there's a single institution that has a territorial monopoly on the production of money (and competing currencies aren't allowed via \"\"legal tender laws\"\"), then the debt-based money system OP describes isn't actually the system being used. That's the problem with his post: he's trying to make it seem like our current system of fiat currencies is somehow natural or emergent. It's not. What we have now is the result of a legal monopoly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67bbe62ea130330005b4bf89e9a8e012",
"text": "So the Japanese are better at the circle jerk. An amusing note, if you pay attention to this stuff at all, you will notice that Japan can't actually just print the money. The process you refer to is considered inflating the debt away. When Japan prints money now, their currency gains value. So they are actually pretty fucked. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-30/when-¥11-trillion-not-enough-japans-qe-9-disappoints-halflife-zero-time-qe10 edit:spelling/grammar sorry",
"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": "dddecdb06519cda8ee142e88c3b1476b",
"text": "\"This might sound absurd, but Japan has a lot of debt held by itself. In other words, when people say a country is \"\"just printing money\"\" it's rarely true. It's often some kind of beyond being issued and sold to the public or to institutions. But in Japan's case they actually did \"\"print money\"\" and have done so for 30 years. Yet they've had a deflation almost every year since. This shows that expanding the money supply doesn't always result in inflation, it depends a lot on the country and its people and means of production. I guess Japan's move to cut the debt is a step into unknown territory, and we can't really know what will happen.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0249299973b1354db19335ee5ea96726
|
Is it normal that US Treasury bills(0.07%) yield smaller than interest rate(0.25%)?
|
[
{
"docid": "e7f354a9cbe95571402c4f53925d8b09",
"text": "Maybe someone will have more details, but a couple of things come to mind immediately:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ab672d78aaa8b37775acad1b53711df",
"text": "Im not sure if its normal/sensical/healthy, and that is kind of opinion based. But there is a reason for it. Certain rules and regulations passed recently are causing companies or institutions to shift to bonds from cash. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72a2701b1f51d5da47456b2cbe3a98a0",
"text": "I have been charting the CPI reported inflation rate vs . the yeald on the 10-year T-note. Usually, the two like to keep pace with each other. Sometimes the T-note is a bit higher than the inflation rate, sometimes the inflation rate is a bit higher than the T-note yeald. One does not appear to follow the other, but (until recently) the two do not diverge from each other by much. But all that changed recently and I am without an explanation as to why. Inflation dropped to zero (or a bit negative) yet the yeald on the 10-year T-note seemed to seek 2%. Edit: If you give this response a downvote then please be kind enough to explain why in a comment. Edit-2: CPI and 10-year T-note are what I have tracked, and continue to track. If you do not like my answer then provide a better one, yourself.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aab39fc5fd7ac4fe676e73fe70b167da",
"text": "These are yields for the government bonds. EuroZone interest rates are much lower (10 times lower, in fact) than the UK (GBP zone) interest rates. The rates are set by the central banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e7ddf36b836da978493b73d74558388",
"text": "You need to read up on how QE works. Banks are not reinvesting deposits at the Fed in Equities. They are earning interest and sitting there, hence why the velocity of any money supply measure is far below where it used to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38474e91d1090b327e78c02db87a1477",
"text": "The only reason I can think of would be if you were convinced that you couldn't hold on to your money. Treasury Bonds are often viewed as very safe investments, and often used in some situations where cash isn't appropriate.. Also, they typically have a somewhat patriotic theme, helping your country to grow. In addition, many people don't really pay attention to the rate of the bonds, but are just investing in them. The more people investing in them, the lower the yields become. But the bottom line is, I would invest in a savings account any day over a negative interest rate... And it looks like I'm in good company as well, a quick study of reports seems to indicate that these are a very bad investment...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cd966234dd356b91115b14fdd887e22",
"text": "\"The simple answer for the so-called 'Rule of X' would be found by: In your case: Update: If you want an approximation closer to the nominal \"\"Rule of 72\"\" value, use this equation that incorporates a better approximation for the natural log. The \"\"Rule of 72\"\" fits this for an interest rate of 7.79% for a growth multiple of 2: The rule of 72 comes from by approximating the natural logarithms as such: The 2 is the multiple of growth. The rate r here is not in percent, so to change to percent (say, R) you have to multiply by 100: The number 72 is often used because it is easier to divide evenly than 69.3 and is a better fit approximation for the natural log and common interest rates. If you need more, you can find all this on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72#Derivation\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62f3d7b741fce8fcb3f608bb101fc0c5",
"text": "\"All of the other answers here are accurate, but (I think) are missing the point as to the question, which rests on how Bonds work in the first place. The bond specifies a payback AMOUNT and DATE. Let's say it is $10,000 and one year from today. If you buy that today for $9900, your yield will be 1%. If you buy it today for $11,000, your yield will be less than 0% (please don't make me do the math - it's just under negative 1%). You might be willing to pay that 1% (rather than receive 1%) for the certainty that you will definitely get your money back. The combined actions of all the people who may be willing to pay a little more or a little less for the safety of a US Treasury Bond is what people call \"\"the Market.\"\" Market forces (generally, investor confidence) will drive the price up and down, which affects the yield. All the other stuff - coupons and inflation and whatnot - all of that only makes sense if you understand that you aren't buying a rate of return, you are buying a payback amount and date.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15e8bee2da522fc40bf064208134acbd",
"text": "yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path. Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "228a966b42e8fb98215b502c9cd1a61a",
"text": "Interest is calculated daily. Doing the math: Between 6-17 and 7-25 are 38 days, 200.29 / 38 = 5.27 interest per day. Between 7-25 and 8-17 are 23 days. 120.02 / 23 = 5.22 interest per day. The minimal difference is because the principal has already gone down a little bit. So you should expect ~5.20 x number of days for the next interest number coming up; slowly decreasing as the remaining principal debt decreases. Note that this is equivalent of an annual interest rate of over 20 %, which is beyond acceptable. In the current economy, this is ridiculously high. I recommend trying to get a refinancing with another provider; you should be able to get it for a third of that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09341e6010c64a265197ec01f49e1ee6",
"text": "As no one has mentioned them I will... The US Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative. The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b67e4d82a9e0277becf00e9f95279d94",
"text": "\"You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called \"\"meager return\"\" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios. In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk. You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals. For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain Investment option B Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82e50750f0038f70e4384ed9660e875d",
"text": "\"1.65% is the annualized interest rate. If it is pail semi-annually, you'd get 8.23 every 6 months. And yes, if the YC is upward sloping, it means that 30 years t-bills pay higher interest. Thats a premium they pay for having your money locked in for a long time. It makes sense if you consider that they'd pay you that rate (say 2%) for the next 30 years. If for some reason interest rates in 25 years from now are like 15-20% (like they were 25 years ago) and inflation around the same rate, you'd still only be making 2%, on top of bleeding purchasing power of your initial investment. That's why long-term bonds require a premium. That being said, sometimes you get an \"\"inverted yield curve\"\", where yield's fall with the longer maturities. Look that up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47d5ccdb39f1ba3248876645856fccec",
"text": "It depends how much risk you're prepared to accept. The short-term risk-free rate of return at present is something in the vicinity of 0.1% (three month US treasuries are currently yielding 0.08%), so anything paying a higher rate on money that's accessible quickly will involve some degree of risk -- the higher the rate then the higher the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7640decc4162cbf62a036df0c7c0f259",
"text": "weird holdover from the bad old days when you had to do arithmetic by hand I would guess. Stocks used to trade in 1/8ths, so bonds trading in even smaller increments makes sense. Also (and I am unsure if this is still true) U.S. bonds trade on a 360 day year (or used to anyway) for the same reason... 360 divides well into months and quarters (for easier math) whereas 365 is considerably harder. Most of the world now trades in decimals and 365/365 years so I am unsure why the U.S. doesn't. Institutional inertia I would guess.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b949e7c4d790bedfd8add9e42eca3b2",
"text": "Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a098f01bc8fa47e3f9160a018b52c89b",
"text": "There are a few other factors possible here: Taxes - Something you don't mention is what are the tax rates on each of those choices. If the 4% gain is taxed at 33% while the 3% government bond is taxed at 0% then it may well make more sense to have the government bond that makes more money after taxes. Potential changes in rates - Could that 4% rate change at any time? Yield curves are an idea here to consider where at times they can become inverted where short-term bonds yield more than long-term bonds due to expectations about rates. Some banks may advertise a special rate for a limited time to try to get more deposits and then change the rate later. Beware the fine print. Could the bond have some kind of extra feature on it? For example, in the US there are bonds known as TIPS that while the interest rate may be low, there is a principal adjustment that comes as part of the inflation adjustment that is part how the security is structured.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3440392865922705522359d6a305d0c9",
"text": "I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bd5483e1132876eacffc19d2cbbe899d
|
Explain the HSI - why do markets sometimes appear in sync and other times not?
|
[
{
"docid": "960c449d3e364f8a8c2d8ec4c62ee6ba",
"text": "Contributing factors to the diversion were that: A) China's currency does not float like other major countries' currencies B) China's real estate market didn't have the same lending criteria leading to the level of speculation seen in USA, at the time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4d7334c7262e73335fa99d644d0e9e9",
"text": "\"why do markets sometimes appear in sync, but during other times, not so much By \"\"markets\"\" I'm assuming you mean equity indices such as the HSI. Financial products fluctuate with respect to the supply/demand of the traders. There's been a large increase in the number of hedge funds, prop desks who trade relative values between financial products, that partially explains why these products seem to pick up \"\"sync\"\" when they get out of line for a while.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa734e78378dc1154719978aecfdb195",
"text": "This is how I've understood this concept. Fibonacci nos/levels/ratios/%s is based on concept of sequential increment. You may find lot of info about Fibonacci on net. In stock market this concept is used to predict psychological level. While a trend is form, usually price tend to accumulate/consolidate at these level. How the percentage/ ratio make impact is - check any long trend...Now draw a fibbo retracement from immediate previous high and connect it's low. You will see new levels of intermediate trend. In broader term you will find after reversal a leg (trend) is formed, then body and then head which is smaller; then price reverses. The first leg that forms if it refuses to break 23.6% or 38.2% then the previous trend may continue. 50% is normal; usually this level is indecision phase. Even 61.8% is seen as indecision but it is crucial level as it is breakout level towards 100%. Now if the stock retraces 100% then it is sign a new big trend is forming. Now for day trader 23.6%,38.2% and 50% level are very crucial from trading purpose. This concept is so realistic that every level is considered and respected. Suppose if a candle or bar starts at 23.6% level and crosses 38.2% and directly hits 50%. Then the next bar or candle will revert and first hit 38.2% and then continue with the trend. It means price comes back, forms it area at this level and then continue whichever direction the force directs it. You never trade fibo alone, you need help of oscillators or other tools to confirm it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "476c6e3d5d3553451189ad0b3ba2f645",
"text": "Well that will depend on the time frame you are looking at it. You can't compare the RSI on a five minute chart to the RSI on a daily chart. The minute chart would represent the momentum of very small trends whilst the daily chart would represent the momentum of much larger trends. On the daily chart the shares might be experiencing a strong uptrend with a rising RSI. During each day the price might move up at the open then come down some, then back up a bit more and repeat this several times during the day before closing higher. During the day the RSI might have moved slightly higher. But during a single day on the 5 minute chart the price may have gone through several up and down trends, with the RSI going into oversold and overbought several times. What you should be looking at to strengthen the signal from the RSI is to watch for when the RSI is in the overbought at the same time the price is reaching a peak, or when the RSI is in the oversold at the same time the price is reaching a trout. These could represent potential turning points in price. The time frame to use would depend on the type of trading you are attempting to undertake. If you prefer day trading (being in and out of a trade in minutes to hours) you might look at time frames of minutes to hours. If you prefer longer term position, trend or swing trading you would probably stick to daily charts. If you prefer longer term active investing you might stick to a combination of daily, weekly and monthly charts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94d2490c97d88ed2dc63b9efb26711fb",
"text": "\"You are right, if by \"\"a lot of time\"\" you mean a lot of occasions lasting a few milliseconds each. This is one of the oldest arbitrages in the book, and there's plenty of people constantly on the lookout for such situations, hence they are rare and don't last very long. Most of the time the relationship is satisfied to within the accuracy set by the bid-ask spread. What you write as an equality should actually be a set of inequalities. Continuing with your example, suppose 1 GBP ~ 2 USD, where the market price to buy GBP (the offer) is $2.01 and to sell GBP (the bid) is $1.99. Suppose further that 1 USD ~ 2 EUR, and the market price to buy USD is EUR2.01 and to sell USD is EUR1.99. Then converting your GBP to EUR in this way requires selling for USD (receive $1.99), then sell the USD for EUR (receive EUR3.9601). Going the other way, converting EUR to GBP, it will cost you EUR4.0401 to buy 1 GBP. Hence, so long as the posted prices for direct conversion are within these bounds, there is no arbitrage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efd0097229164057ef16b3e11f442cf7",
"text": "The closest I can think of from the back of my head is http://finviz.com/map.ashx, which display a nice map and allows for different intervals. It has different scopes (S&P500, ETFs, World), but does not allow for specific date ranges, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c36672b381c86276903fa1f9237200e",
"text": "I was recently at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK and discussing exactly this. By January 2018 financial institutes will be legally required to time stamp all transactions (including high frequency trades) with a UTC time code. Today this is almost exclusively done using GPS satellite time and as the OP states - these can be spoofed but also are vulnerable to certain weather conditions. One of the many innovations of NPL in their recent diversification includes sending ‘time’ into the city by optical fibre which is ‘gold standard and cannot be tampered with’. Very interesting topic ( I thought )!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89e3beda30f53ba8ac2de67b874e8dd3",
"text": "This question is impossible answer for all markets but there are 2 more possibilities in my experience:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27c4e69d2f392f68687ad026b2b9ae91",
"text": "The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities. That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments. High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive. Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead. So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening. And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market. But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme. But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market. So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a59f0ebeaf20f975b4ff4f49b59424e",
"text": "I have watched the ticker when I have made a transaction. About ¼ of the time my buy (or sell) actually moves the going price. But that price movement is wiped out by other transactions within two (or so) munites. Is your uncle correct? Yes. Will anyone notice? No.",
"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": "682b9e5c188daf75f671e05c6215d32c",
"text": "In regards to your title, it's based on product. Rates based products had a late 2016 early 2017 run. It's now summer time and the fed is acting as expected. Clients have already positioned themselves going into the slow season. Distressed bonds and HY loans are still moving. After the latest fed increase and the yield curve flattening, HY loans took a hit. Par loans were trading at a discount. The market has moved back to paying a premium. However, HY bonds have been slowing down since June. New issue has dropped off, and equities have slowed as well. It's summer time. I wouldn't say that traders have it tough as the tittle suggests, it's just that it was a very active first quarter and now volatility has subsided. It's just the quiet season.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a43d0a13a01babe7f87b6ccb7c57d41d",
"text": "the strategy is tested all the way to 97. how is the continuous series backadjusted? the emini is rolledover and Ratio back adjusted to the 2nd nearest contract, 9 days prior to expiration. since it is an intraday trade, the discrepancy to the real thing should be next to irrelevant. but comparing it to the spx could make it interesting. what would be a good format to present the results ? jpeg? pdf ?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b0353eb5873769de175d7620734fdfe",
"text": "A stock's price does not move in a completely continuous fashion. It moves in discrete steps depending on who is buying/selling at given prices. I'm guessing that by opening bell the price for buying/selling a particular stock has changed based on information obtained overnight. A company's stock closes at $40. Overnight, news breaks that the company's top selling product has a massive defect. The next morning the market opens. Are there any buyers of the stock at $40? Probably not. The first trade of the stock takes place at $30 and is thus, not the same as the previous day's close.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76b3ed663f72d7d3a4b5b4f8254222b9",
"text": "This is often the case where traders are closing out short positions they don't want to hold overnight, for a variety of reasons that matter to them. Most frequently, this is from day traders or high-frequency traders settling their accounts before the markets close.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db730d06199ca78710eb4791cf69fe3",
"text": "Daily > Weekly > Monthly. This statement says that if you use daily returns you will get more noise than if you used weekly or monthly returns. Much of the research performed uses monthly returns, although weekly returns have been used as well. For HFT you would need to detrend the data in order to spot true turning points.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcc2a70daed4014de388c1cd026b754a",
"text": "\"Trading at the start of a session is by far higher than at any other time of the day. This is mostly due to markets incorporating news into the prices of stocks. In other words, there are a lot of factors that can affect a stock, 24 hours a day, but the market trades for only 6.5 hours a day. So, a lot of news accumulates during the time when people cannot trade on that news. Then when markets finally open, people are able to finally trade on that news, and there is a lot of \"\"price discovery\"\" going on between market participants. In the last minutes of trading, volumes increase as well. This can often be attributed to certain kinds of traders closing out their position before the end of the day. For example, if you don't want to take the risk a large price movement at the start of the next day affecting you, you would need to completely close your position.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a12eb6335a87ef4662b56e91f1bf0a0e
|
What happens if someone destroy money?
|
[
{
"docid": "d6c65aeccd0683c60a76071f66ac8b74",
"text": "Depending on the country, nothing. For example, the US has about $1.3 trillion dollars of cash in circulation. Which means that if you were to burn a million dollars of it, that would be 0.000077% of the circulating cash. But cash is a small portion of the actual money in the US. Only about 8% of all money is in cash, the rest is in other forms of value, which means that you'd only be destroying 0.0000062% of the US's money if you burned a full $1,000,000.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b93c7ef76fa2cce48a890654cca162ba",
"text": "That's like saying the Dollar is untrustworthy because Madoff used it in his scam, or that the Dollar is a criminal enterprise because US cash is the number one currency of the black market. If you believe those arguments as well, then I grant your criticism, but otherwise you'd be inconsistent. Personally I don't think it makes sense to blame the money in any of these situations. Money's just a fundamental tool for all economic activity, good or bad, and in all of these cases, I'd argue the money did exactly what it's supposed to do. Seems a lot more reasonable to blame the individuals involved.",
"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": "dfdae4d4e49db42f4ac8872b91cedfe5",
"text": "Assume that he reformed his ways. He stopped the destructive behavior (gambling) and had enough money from a job going forward to pay for all his future expenses. Then it is true the old debts will fade away both as being collectable, and as a source of a negative mark on the credit report. Also assume that the people or companies never figure out that the the relative has a steady source of income, also assume that all the debts can be forgiven and have no long lasting impact. If any of those assumptions aren't true the plan won't work. The trail of debts will continue to grow, and may have additional complications. As debts fall off the radar, they may be replaced even faster by new threats. Many a person has used a debt consolidation loan, or a home equity loan to pay off all the credit cards; but found themselves back in trouble because they never fixed the underlying problem: they spend more than they make. In the case of a home equity loan they put their house at rick, as a replacement of unsecured loans. If the gambling continues, the lack of payment of old debts becomes a crutch for the ability to generate new debts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a75aef42b2ea095ab21acbd518c1c4f",
"text": "Under US law, if you clearly have more than half of a torn bill it is worth its full value; the smaller piece is worth nothing... except that having both halves makes the banking system much happier, since it prevents some particularly stupid counterfeiting attempts. So this proposal wouldn't be cheat-proof unless the cut is close enough to the middle to make determining 51% difficult. And I'd like to see you try to explain to a bank how so many bills were cut in half... (This is more normally an issue when money has been damaged unintentionally, of course.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d950755a8b61ed3e9d7451cdd84b0b3",
"text": "\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e1f3402f6be1995f6370f699e651c10",
"text": "glass steall is one. getting rid of glass stegall meant commercial banks could create iou money irresponsibly through loaning and sell the loan to wall street speculators. This drives up assets to bubble prices. Inflation for all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6e67df494d70bb86bbc203462decd2a",
"text": "Coins have the minimum value of the metal they are made from. Bank notes (paper money) would only be valuable when it becomes rare. And there isn't a good way to predict how quickly something like Zimbabwe dollars will become rare (that I know of at least).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3dde80b95a519f0137d6062a6639fb0",
"text": "\"In the United States if the person insures an article and then claims a loss of that article, the insurance replaces the missing/destroyed article. If later on the item is found the original is owned by the insurance company. The person who purchased the policy doesn't get to keep both. Of course if the item was so valuable to be priceless the insurance company would be open to an exchange of items or money. But if they suspect fraud...then it becomes a legal matter. Even when a life isn't involved it can be a source of dispute: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal5-7-10.asp INSURED V. INSURER: WHEN STOLEN ART IS RECOVERED, WHO OWNS IT? Kenneth S. Levine This essay is about the word \"\"subrogation,\"\" which frequently appears in insurance policies. An insured painting is stolen and the insurance company pays the owner’s claim for the value of the painting. Many years later, when the painting is recovered, its value is many times what it was when the insurance claim was paid. The insurance company takes the position that it owns the painting, while the owner says I own the painting, less the value of the insurance proceeds received. The resolution of this dispute depends on the meaning of the word \"\"subrogation\"\" in the insurance policy. When life insurance is involved, the item being replace is the lost stream of income. The question of returning money and how much would be a legal issue. They would also want to know if there was fraud, and who was involved.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad73bd8539ac724a2790c7febeabc767",
"text": "\"The SFGate had an article on this a few years ago: http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/When-government-fines-companies-who-gets-cash-3189724.php \"\"Civil penalties, often referred to as fines, usually go to the U.S. Treasury or victims.\"\" Short answer in the case you references it would be the US Treasury. In cases where there is a harmed party then they would get something to account for their loss. But it can get complicated depending on the crime.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "985398eb036b785f2e9219933b6b2b4d",
"text": "\"But I think another interesting postscript to this which is relevant at this time is that the orchard wildfire isn't the only thing that can make money \"\"disappear\"\". The use of a currency rather than a transferable note means that it can be an independent store of value, so there are perverse outcomes that can happen that can't happen with IOUs. So say some particularly wealthy person in the village starts to hoard his money and corners a large fraction of the money supply (say he's anticipating some horrible plague). The number of Loddars decreases, and the orchard owner starts paying his workers fewer Loddars as a result. But their debts are denominated in \"\"old\"\" Loddars which were easier to come by, and quickly the workers are unable to pay their debts, or have to spend all their money on their debts and have none for anything else. They default on those debts and the money \"\"disappears\"\"--but it doesn't disappear for any physical reason (the workers are doing the same amount of work), it disappears because of a shock to the monetary supply. This is a \"\"demand shock\"\" versus the \"\"supply shock\"\" of an orchard catching on fire.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f836cd217d6541bbfe6c08fcca1719a",
"text": "The question is about the US but to add the European perspective: The rule over here (I only know German law, but assume it's the same for all of the Euro area) is that you need more than half of the bill or you have to be able to prove that more than half of the bill was destroyed (good luck) in order to get it replaced. Deformed coins can also be replaced. But all only as long as you didn't break it on purpose. So giving half of the bill to the cab driver would be on purpose and (if the central bank knows about it) make the bill (or coin) invalid. German information: https://www.bundesbank.de/Navigation/DE/Aufgaben/Bargeld/Beschaedigtes_Geld/beschaedigtes_geld.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b546e3ca3edf9892dc011ac3e6ca69",
"text": "It's quite the contrary. If there are mass failures of banks, then the money supply will collapse and there will be vicious deflation, increasing the value of money held as cash. It's only if governments print money to bail the banks out that there's a (small) risk of hyperinflation and the effective collapse of the currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddfb27d7da0a0df21a16911f574c45b0",
"text": "I can see three possibilities: * The money was illegally transferred and used for operating costs when they started having trouble. * The company was playing Enron-like accounting games, and were reporting imaginary profits and gains. In that case, the money never really existed. * The money was outright stolen, and is in somebody's offshore bank accounts. Or some combination of these.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d38822bf632fe87eea07da72fa4d23f",
"text": "Similar action is being undertaken in Europe following the example of Cyprus. As WND recently pointed out, finance ministers of the 27-member European Union in June had approved forcing bondholders, shareholders and large depositors with more than 100,000 euros in their accounts to make the financial sacrifice before turning to the government for help with taxpayer funds. Do they get compensation later if the bank recovers?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef97994caf681e812349342b498a2398",
"text": "In general, Roth IRAs, are associated with the individual. Unlike 401(k)s for which the business holds the retirement account in the name of the individual. So, although the company may have helped you set up the Roth it is in your name and you can continue to contribute to it. Wikipedia has some helpful information here. It should be noted, however, that sometimes businesses set up special deals with retirement service companies or brokers that hold Roth IRAs so you should check with the particular company/broker that holds your Roth.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5a13a591db5ab07fc803c8d18a6e8fb7
|
how derivatives transfer risk from one entity to another
|
[
{
"docid": "18fffb30cf851552aecb3366f6b51409",
"text": "By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "726bcd53a303cde3ab05e01634862981",
"text": "When you buy a call option, you transfer the risk to the owner of the asset. They are risking losing out on gains that may accumulate in addition to the strike price and paid premium. For example, if you buy a $25 call option on stock XYZ for $1 per contract, then any additional gain above $26 per share of XYZ is missed out on by the owner of the stock and solely benefits the option holder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52981c665fee7c5690b99f2b7cb7e0d2",
"text": "The important thing to realize is, what would you do, if you didn't have the call? If you didn't have call options, but you wanted to have a position in that particular stock, you would have to actually purchase it. But, having purchased the shares, you are at risk to lose up to the entire value of them-- if the company folded or something like that. A call option reduces the potential loss, since you are at worst only out the cost of the call, and you also lose a little on the upside, since you had to pay for the call, which will certainly have some premium over buying the underlying share directly. Risk can be defined as reducing the variability of outcomes, so since calls/shorts etc. reduce potential losses and also slightly reduce potential gains, they pretty much by definition reduce risk. It's also worth noting, that when you buy a call, the seller could also be seen as hedging the risk of price decreases while also guaranteeing that they have a buyer at a certain price. So, they may be more concerned about having cash flow at the right time, while at the same time reducing the cost of the share losing in value than they are losing the potential upside if you do exercise the option. Shorts work in the same way but opposite direction to calls, and forwards and futures contracts are more about cash flow management: making sure you have the right amount of money in the right currency at the right time regardless of changes in the costs of raw materials or currencies. While either party may lose on the transaction due to price fluctuations, both parties stand to gain by being able to know exactly what they will get, and exactly what they will have to pay for it, so that certainty is worth something, and certainly better for some firms than leaving positions exposed. Of course you can use them for speculative purposes, and a good number of firms/people do but that's not really why they were invented.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ed548c3e0a3f02a0fdfa8740bd84ee73",
"text": "\"I struggled with this one at first. It's easiest if you temporarily ignore the mathematical machinery of martingales and go back to the derivation that Black and Scholes provide in their 1973 paper. They basically show that when you construct a portfolio consisting of a long position in the option (the one being priced) and a short position on the replicating portfolio (consisting of shares of stock and cash in the risk-free bank account), then that portfolio will be entirely risk-less, and hence will earn the risk-free rate of interest. This makes intuitive sense if you think about it - every change in the value of the option is going to be countered by an opposite change in the replicating portfolio; by no arbitrage, that composite portfolio (the option + the replicating portfolio) must therefore earn the risk-free rate. The fact that the composite portfolio earns the risk-free rate provides the connection to martingale pricing. Recall that a martingale is basically* a stochastic process that has no drift, only volatility. Here, it's useful to think of the drift as being the \"\"risk premium\"\" or \"\"return\"\" of a particular asset (like the stock). What martingale pricing theory says is that to find the price of the option we (1) discount the value of the replicating portfolio by the cash bond (the numeraire asset), and (2) turn the stochastic process of the risky asset in the replicating portfolio into a martingale. This move intuitively makes sense because the Black-Scholes derivation shows that the replicating portfolio + the option must earn the risk-free rate, but if you divide the value of the Black-Scholes replicating portfolio by the numeraire asset, you're going to cancel out that risk-free rate -- e.g. have a Martingale. (I'm not a mathematician, so please correct me if I've mucked something up in my explanation). *I say basically because there are some technical conditions that need to be fulfilled, but that's generally true.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb0299e0e2742cda3ef07689492964a8",
"text": "I used to trade power for a closed end hedge fund. Yes, weather derivatives are very important. They help power traders / utilities hedge for unaccountable variables, IE weather. For example, lets say it costs a utility $50 an hour to produce power for the load when it is 80 degrees outside. Lets say I trade the contract with them to guarantee the weather will be under 80 degrees. If the weather is higher than 80 degrees, more people turn in their AC, the load on the grid goes up, and the utility has to start generating power at $70 an hour. Under this contract, I would be liable to pay the utility the net difference in their cost (the additional $20 per hour they generate per mw). In that case I am a loser. If the power comes in under 80 degrees, I make money as I priced (sold) the contract at a premium according to the risk I calulated for offereing the contract. This has many many applications, but yes, its not a weird thing to trade. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c36699bd826eaa8ece137871f7998d2",
"text": "It's not! With gambling, you're placing a bet on some team's performance but you don't own the team, or the field they play on, or the other team, or the ball! Derivatives are just like that! Except with derivatives, the team can bet against themselves, and not tell you that they have!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02427d12af8759afcbefe184e22a93fa",
"text": "As far as I can see, it misses the most important point (from the perspective of a private person), for most derivatives: It's marketing. There are a bunch of derivatives out there which are ONLY traded by (and actively marketed to) retail investors, no instutional investors or companies. They are complex and, in terms of the combination of risk and reward, inferior to plain-vanilla classic derivatives, which gives the bank a better margin...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6342604cd47313dbdefb96dca9f311fd",
"text": "\"As Dheer pointed out, Wikipedia has a good definition of what a negotiable instrument is. A security is an instrument or certificate that signifies an ownership interest in something tangible. 1 share of IBM represents some small fraction of a company. You always have the ability to choose a price you are willing to pay -- which may or may not be the price that you get. A derivative is a level of abstraction linked by a contract to a security... if you purchase a \"\"Put\"\" contract on IBM stock, you have a contractural right to sell IBM shares at a specific price on a specific date. When you \"\"own\"\" a derivative, you own a contract -- not the actual security.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8daec80263369110516fd14857c70b71",
"text": "\"MD-Tech answered: The answer is in your question: derivatives are contracts so are enforced in the same way as any other contract. If the counterparty refuses to pay immediately they will, in the first instance be billed by any intermediary (Prime Broker etc.) that facilitated the contract. If they still refuse to pay the contract may stipulate that a broker can \"\"net off\"\" any outstanding payments against it or pay out using deposited cash or posted margins. The contract will usually include the broker as an interested party and so they can, but don't need to, report a default (such that this is) to credit agencies (in some jurisdictions they are required to by law). Any parties to the trade and the courts may use a debt collection agency to collect payments or seize assets to cover payment. If there is no broker or the counterparty still has not paid the bill then the parties involved (the party to the trade and any intermediaries) can sue for breach of contract. If they win (which would be expected) the counterparty will be made to pay by the legal system including, but not limited to, seizure of assets, enforced bankruptcy, and prison terms for any contempts of court rulings. All of this holds for governments who refuse to pay derivatives losses (as Argentina did in the early 20th century) but in that case it may escalate as far as war. It has never done so for derivatives contracts as far as I know but other breaches of contract between countries have resulted in armed conflict. As well as the \"\"hard\"\" results of failing to pay there are soft implications including a guaranteed fall in credit ratings that will result in parties refusing to do business with the counterparty and a separate loss of reputation that will reduce business even further. Potential employees and funders will be unwilling to become involved with such a party and suppliers will be unwilling to supply on credit. The end result in almost every way would be bankruptcy and prison sentences for the party or their senior employees. Most jurisdictions allow for board members at companies in material breach of contract to be banned from running any company for a set period as well. edit: netting off cash flows netting off is a process whereby all of a party's cash flows, positive and negative, are used to pay each other off so that only the net change is reflected in account balances, for example: company 1 cash flows netting off the total outgoings are 3M + 500k = 3.5M and total incomings are 1.2M + 1.1M + 1.2M = 3.5M so the incoming cash flows can be used to pay the outgoing cash flows leaving a net payment into company1's account of 0.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e76f8ec294f1dda50d223b9e70c6059",
"text": "It makes sense for a lot of people - it's basically weather insurance. It's useful for farmers (bad weather ruining a harvest), airlines (abnormally high amount of snowstorms increasing cost of delayed flights), hotels (rain making people visit less), ski resorts (not enough snow) and other businesses that can be negatively impacted by extreme weather variations. If they systematically slightly overpay for this protection the speculator can make money on net helping these businesses reduce the volatility of their cashflows which is important because they need to pay their overhead costs every year. Edit: The derivatives themselves also allows the people selling weather insurance to hedge their exposure on the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caa19ab27be2bb9a82c10b0dc848e95d",
"text": "Generally, anyone can. Selling them is an interesting point, as the buyer has a counterparty risk that you won't be able to pay at the term of the contract. So, if I was a vendor buying a derivative in my example, I would definitely get that derivative from a bank as opposed to my friend Jim Bob. Especially in cases of bespoke derivatives, it doesn't make sense for anyone except people who have material interest to by it, as the expectation value of the hedge is negative. Essentially, you're more likely to lose money than gain money from a hedge. The exception is when you have information above that of the market, which could allow for a positive return. That is the reason that people advocate for derivatives as mechanisms of price discovery, because large imbalances aren't likely to form when someone could arbitrage or even just take positions when the market goes out of whack. That only really works in publically traded markets, however, bespoke derivatives don't really contribute to better pricing afaik. Of course, that's the simple explanation to a huge, complex, and varied field. Certainly, speculators exist, particularly in the more commoditized derivatives. Especially in the leadup to the financial crisis, large amounts were spent on exotic derivatives that blew up in people's faces. The easiest thing to say about them is that they are double edged swords. In theory, they're fantastic, as it allows risk to be spread around to people that want it. It should lead to a safer system, as hedged comapnies are less exposed to shocks and are more resilient. But in practice, we've alao seen them used as risk concentrators (AIG). We've seen cases where correlations arise that weren't assumed before, and what used to be manageable positions become lead weights. We've seen the dangers that large systemically important financial institutions have when they are a counterparty to tens of trillions in notional derivatives, as when they fail the risk of failure is over every derivative they are counterparty to, not just the hedged exposure. Sorry, this is more than you asked for. I tend to get carried away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a20065d917fb18d76572c8a226091329",
"text": "\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3365eaf1af20cd0487b113340fb84876",
"text": "First, realize that Wikipedia is written by individuals, just like this board has thousands of members. The two definition were written and edited by different people, most likely. Think Venn diagram. The definition for financial instruments claims that it's the larger set, and securities is contained in a subset. Comparing the two, it seems pretty consistent. Yes, Securities include derivatives. Transferable is close to tradable, although to me tradable implies a market as compared to private transfers. I don't believe there's an opposite, per se, but there's 'other stuff.' My house has value, but is not a security. My coffee cup has no value. Back to the concept of Venn. There aren't really opposites, just items falling outside the set we're discussing. I'd caution, this is a semantic exercise. If you know what you're buying, a stock, a bond, a gold bar, etc, whether it's a financial instrument or security doesn't matter to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b807557ba137c1143736dc37981715b",
"text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af07b740b87613ecc580fd8f8e59ced",
"text": "\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7216604d3f8715b51196cd358b2b6426",
"text": "\"JoeTaxpayer's answer adequately explained leverage and some of your risks. Your risks also include: The firm's risk is that you will figure out a way to leave them with a negative account that contributes to another customer's profit and yet you disappear in a way that makes the negative account impossible to collect. Another risk is that you are not who you say you are, or that the money you invest is not yours. These are called \"\"know your customer\"\" risks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59430118e07e163ffeb46f261970388b",
"text": "No. Such companies don't exist. Derivative instruments have evolved over a period and there is a market place, stock exchange with members / broker with obligations etc clearly laid out and enforceable. If I understand correctly say the house is at 300 K. You would like a option to sell it to someone for 300 K after 6 months. Lets say you are ready to pay a premium of 10K for this option. After 6 months, if the market price is 400 K you would not exercise the option and if the market price of your house is 200 K you would exercise the option and ask the option writer to buy your house for 300 K. There are quite a few challenges, i.e. who will moderate this transaction. How do we arrive that house is valued at 300K. There could be actions taken by you to damage the property and hence its reduction in value, etc. i.e. A stock exchange like market place for house is not there and it may or may not develop in future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11ac7193d83c134cf94524ff5242facc",
"text": "When we 'delta-hedge', we make the value of a portfolio 0. No - you make the risk relative to some underlying 0. The portfolio does have a value, but if whatever underlying you're hedging against changes slightly the value of your portfolio should not change. But, what is the derivative of a portfolio? It's the instantaneous rate of change of the portfolio) relative to some underlying phenomenon. With a portfolio of many stocks, there's not one single factor that drives the value of your portfolio. You have sensitivity to each underlying stock (price and volatility), interest rates, the market as a whole, etc. For simplicity, we might imagine a portfolio that has holdings in .... a call .... a stock .... and a bank account (to borrow and lend money). You will have a delta relative to the stock and a delta relative to the underlying instrument on the option, etc. Those can only be aggregated for each factor (e.g. if the call is an option on the same stock) Theta is the only one you can calculate for the portfolio as a whole - it will be the aggregate theta of all of your positions (since change in time is constant across all investments). All of the others are not aggregatable since they are measuring sensitivities to different phenomena.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3c08e348ebff0e59a53a7ae6d4066088
|
Pros & cons of investing in gold vs. platinum?
|
[
{
"docid": "3c0be7f8345f898877a01ab341b099da",
"text": "\"Platinum use is pretty heavily overweight in industrial areas; according to the linked Wikipedia article, 239 tonnes of platinum was sold in 2006, of which 130 tonnes went to vehicles emissions control devices and another 13.3 tonnes to electronics. Gold sees substantial use as an investment as well as to hedge against economical decline and inflation, with comparatively little industrial (\"\"real world\"\", as some put it) use. That is their principal difference from an investment point of view. According to Wikipedia's article on platinum, ... during periods of economic uncertainty, the price of platinum tends to decrease due to reduced industrial demand, falling below the price of gold. Gold prices are more stable in slow economic times, as gold is considered a safe haven and gold demand is not driven by industrial uses. If your investment scenario is a tanking world economy, for reason of its large industrial usage, I for one would not count on platinum to not fall in price. Of course gold may fall in price as well, but since it is not primarily an industrial use commodity, I would personally expect gold to do better in such a scenario.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ade3fd091361ec8f9583fdbc5e25aee",
"text": "@Michael Kjörling answered why platinum is in demand like it is. But it missed some of the significant risks so I will address some of them. Platinum is much more rare than gold. But not because there is less platinum than gold just that the known existing platinum veins are smaller and more disbursed. So if a large vein were found it could have a significant impact on the availability and thus reducing price of platinum. New mining technologies are being developed every day. One of these could make exacting platinum from existing not platinum mines easier and more cost effective again increasing the availability and reducing the price of platinum. The vast majority of platinum use today is for emissions controls. There is a lot of money being thrown into research on green energy and technologies. One of these technologies or a side effect of other research could result in much more cost effective ways to combat emissions. Should that happen I would expect the price of platinum to fall through the floor and potentially never recover. I do not think any of these scenarios are imminent. But the risks that they present are so great it is important to consider them before investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fba31dd03ef6a74abbd84c3485d133ba",
"text": "It is only wise to invest in what you understand (ala Warren Buffet style). Depending on how much money you have, you might see fit to consult a good independent financial advisor instead of seeking advice from this website. A famous quote goes: “Those who say, do not know. Those who know, do not say”",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c8a3ed95e53bde1cd8f9ebc88cbef09",
"text": "\"One might hope for slightly more rationality in the platinum market. Rarely does one hear talk of \"\"platinum bugs\"\", rants about how every society on Earth has valued platinum as the One True Valuable Thing (tm), or seen presidential candidates call for the return to the platinum standard.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3119aeae1528d6f880aa844c1396c264",
"text": "Why Investors Buy Platinum is an old (1995) article but still interesting to understand the answer to your question.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dc23dc0b3a9f674b1d90cdb84f98052a",
"text": "This was such a wonderful and clear explanation. It has helped me to understand (at 28) a concept that I have always been a bit murky on. I would feel safe making the bet that you are a teacher of some sort. I would find it extremely interesting to hear you thoughts on why we don't use the gold standard anymore. Do you work in finance?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b47b1fed185fd92a2718eccc810c8dc",
"text": "\"So, what's your actual plan/strategy/suggestion to combat this, again? Are you planning on buying physical gold, other precious metals (again, tangible--not paper), and buying & investing in real estate? This isn't a sarcastic question; I want to go down this hypothetical path in the thought experiment a bit further. For example: for a US investor, could *part* of the strategy be to \"\"move to a state with no state income tax\"\" to preserve as much income as possible in order to invest that income in one of the target categories? Is careful selection of primary residence (real estate) in a location most likely to appreciate part of the strategy? Is moving your investment accounts offshore to a tax haven part of the strategy?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "029604fb1bc4681115e58f3ce904a708",
"text": "Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice. Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f23f29ee7298a4b0713f216a85b8eb2",
"text": "Can anyone suggest all type of investments in India which are recession proof? There are no such investments. Quite a few think bullions like Gold tend to go up during recession, which is true to an extent; however there are enough articles that show it is not necessarily true. There are no fool proof investments. The only fool proof way is to mitigate risks. Have a diversified portfolio that has Debt [Fixed Deposits, Bonds] and equity [Stocks], Bullion [Gold], etc. And stay invested for long as the effects tend to cancel out in the long run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34f75daeea825fb48d7bdfcbe8d81d1d",
"text": "I thought the same. Money as a transferable item is against future items, and debt is a transferable item against future money, which is also seen as a much farther into the future item. Money = tomorrows item. Debt = tomorrows money = (tomorrows item)(time +1); or longer if we agree to pay it off over 20 years Interestingly I have seen a writeup on why gold is the material of choice. If someone can find this it would be great but I will try write from memory, Google is not helping. The story is something like this: Essentially when trading a material for jewellery we had difficulty finding what material to use. Obviously it must be something hardy and tough, but not common. Metals are the obvious choice, although crystalline structures like gems and opals are useful. The reason for metals are that they can easily and repeatably be shaped into a form that will be aesthetically pleasing and hold its shape. But which specific metal is to be chosen; obviously it must be chemically stable, so potassium magnesium and those metal like elements are removed from contention. It must be rare so items like lead, iron and copper are too common, although not worthless. The most stable, malleable and rare materials are Platinum, Silver and Gold. Platinum requires too high a melting point to be suitable; the requirements to smelt and handle it as a material are too high. Not to deny the value but the common use it prohibitive. Silver is easier to handle, but tends to tarnish. Continuous upkeep is required and this becomes a detraction of its full value. Finally Gold, rare, low melting point, resistant to tarnishing and oxidation, rare, malleable and pretty. A sweet spot of all materials.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f82eef360c642b80cbd1041bd8dcd02",
"text": "\"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \"\"modified\"\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa01502eec01a6f65c85bb2e05377b52",
"text": "I assume you've looked into gold as an asset class (which is considered to be a good diversifier in your portfolio at about 5% of investments) because there are a lot of opinions around about that. But in terms of physical vs paper gold investment, my experience has been that they'll absolutely kill you on fees if you're not careful. I had a broker try and charge me $80/oz. They do it in the margins though, so they'll just sell at say $1,350 but buy at $1,200. Just make sure you either know the market price when you walk in and stick to your guns or lock in a price ahead of time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f28edc15e301af581cc4338182d9b599",
"text": "Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27e877e4cec6ea2b87a40717500396bc",
"text": "Silver and gold are money. They always have been. When the Euro collapses (soon) and dollar inflation enters the steep part of the parabolic curve of death please remember this conversation. Please remember that by trying to look smart you didn't invest in gold and silver.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb6cf381a81bcc5bf1f0ada803b42b6f",
"text": "Gold and silver are for after the crisis, not during. Gold and silver are far more likely to be able to be exchanged for things you need, since they are rare, easily divided, etc. Getting land away from where the crap is happening is also good, but it's more than that. Say you have land somewhere. How will the locals view you if you move there to hunker down only when things go bad? They won't really trust you, and you'll inherit a new set of problems. Building relationships in an off-the-beaten-path area requires a time investment. Investing in lifestyle in general is good. Lifestyle isn't just toys, but it's privacy, peace of mind, relationships with people with whom you can barter skills, as well as the skills you might think you'd need to do more than just get by in whatever scenario you envision. For the immediate crisis, you'd better have the things you'll need for a few months. Stores probably won't be supplied on any regular basis, and the shelves will be bare. Trying to use gold or silver during the crisis just makes you a target for theft. With regard to food, it's best to get acclimated to a diet of what you'd have on hand. If you get freeze-dried food, eat it now, so that it's not a shock to your system when you have to eat it. (Can you tell I've been thinking about this? :) )",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3607a043684b8872743d857643bac48f",
"text": "Bitcoins have the potential to be an alternative to gold or USD, but not yet. Their value is too volatile, and there are still serious security concerns. I would strongly advise anyone against putting more than a small % of their worth in Bitcoins.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "263e89f9838c5e3af00d6b60d70cb784",
"text": "As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ea028386d7b77f54bba0eb3c5e18b8c",
"text": "With gold at US$1300 or so, a gram is about $40. For your purposes, you have the choice between the GLD ETF, which represents a bit less than 1/10oz gold equivalent per share, or the physical metal itself. Either choice has a cost: the commission on the buy plus, eventually, the sale of the gold. There may be ongoing fees as well (fund fees, storage, etc.) GLD trades like a stock and you can enter limit orders or any other type of order the broker accepts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31d6992cf6ec96afe2148aa04cd54d57",
"text": "I agree with buying gold, as this is truly the worldwide currency and will only increase in value if the Euro fails. The only issue will be if your country confiscates all citizen's gold ( it has happened many times throughout history. As for ETFs, be careful because unless you purchase these in terms of other currencies (I am assuming you aren't), than the ETF you own is still in terms of Euros, making the whole investment worthless if you are trying to avoid Euro currency risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad32b366e3bdae012d4e82acaf4d66d1",
"text": "\">Of course; the generation Xers are those in the age range where many were approaching the time when they would, but had not yet, transferred the bulk of their retirement savings to lower risk investments. **Your analysis is WAY off-base.** Gen X was more than a DECADE AWAY from even *thinking* of switching to \"\"lower risk investments\"\". The OLDEST Gen X'ers were born in 1964 and have (just now) turned 48 -- they were (at most) 44 years old in 2008 when the market crashed. The YOUNGEST Gen X'ers were born circa 1981-82, and (just now) have reached age 30 -- they were just getting started in their careers (around age 26) in 2008 when the market crashed. The MAJORITY of Gen X'ers were -- in 2008 -- in their mid 30's. NO ONE switches to \"\"low risk investments\"\" in their mid 30's. --- No, the only Gen X'ers who DIDN'T get \"\"screwed\"\" by the market crash were either: 1. Savvy enough to have SEEN the bubble & crash coming and so got OUT of the stock market and/or housing; or... 2. Waited out the storm & sat tight -- and allowed their market holdings to both crash and then rebound (though they would still largely be \"\"down\"\" from where they were at peak 2008, they wouldn't have suffered huge losses).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
edde7cbee7b5b2e88e62f965400d320d
|
How fast does the available amount of gold in the world increase due to mining?
|
[
{
"docid": "0688fcd073e0219ce2b6319825056b50",
"text": "For the last few years around 2,500 metric tonnes of gold have been produced each year. This is on top of existing supply of 160,000 metric tonnes. Existing yearly production is around 1.5% of the existing supply. Charts from here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9178447e3c6b7a4528522f3c1acb7cdc",
"text": "If that fraction is really small, then the amount of gold can be thought of as relatively constant. That fraction is very small. After all, people have been mining gold for thousands of years. So the cumulative results of gold mining have been building up the supply for quite some time. Meanwhile, owners of gold rarely destroy it. A little bit of gold is used in some industries as a consumable. This limited consumption of gold offsets some of the production that comes from mining. But truthfully this effect is minuscule. For the most part people either hoard it like its made of gold, or sell it (after all it is worth its weight in gold). If you're interested Wikipedia lists a few more factors that affect gold prices. (If you're not interested Wikipedia lists them anyway.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e15fa69c9638052da5104cf68de929d",
"text": "Approximately 5.3 billion ounces have been mined. This puts the total value of all gold in the world at about $9.5 trillion, based on $1800/oz. Total world net worth was $125T in 2006. There's an odd thing that happens when one asset's value is suddenly such a large percent of all assets. (This reminds me of how and why the tech bubble burst. Cisco and EMC would have been worth more than all other stocks combined if they grew in the 00's like they did in the 90's.) Production (in 2005/6) ran about 80 million oz/yr. Just over 1.5% impact to total supply, so you are right in that observation. On the other hand, the limited amount out here, means that if everyone decided to put their wealth in gold, it would be done by driving the price to bubblicious levels. One can study this all day, and parse out how much is in investment form (as compared to jewelry, etc) and realize that a few trillion dollars in value pales in comparison to the wealth of the US alone, let alone the world. Half the world can't buy two oz if they tried. Of course there's pressure to reopen mines that had costs pushing $800/oz. Understand that the supply of $300 gold is long gone. As the easy gold has been mined, and cost goes up, there's a point where mines close. But as the price of gold trades at these levels, the mines that couldn't produce at $600 are now opening.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eab99cf37df4a53a13425e546e9c18cc",
"text": "Your quote: There's about 10 trillion in gold and about 2.8 trillion of US cash in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world. So how was it commercial banks could lend like crazy for home mortgages?? M1 remaind constant throughout the decade and years , if frac multiplier effect was the cause for m2, why wasn't it until the 2000s that m2 became exponential? Commercial Banks able to create credit and lend out of thin air to customers thanks to deregulation that caused m2 to explode. They didn't need no FED. They didin't need no reserves. They were able to act regardless of the FED. The FED responded to them, instead of the other way around. Before deregulation banks didn't bother creating too much credit loans coz it was too dangerous, they were mostly utilty banks. After deregulation, creation of exotic derivatives, low interest rates, and high speed internet globalized digital trading, they went crazy creating credit out of thin air coz it wasn't dangerous because they could sell the home loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "861a9d04974ce6c228e125c840a8f454",
"text": "Mining/discovery of gold can be inflationary -- the Spanish looting of Central America for a few hundred years or the gold rush in the 19th century US are examples of that phenomenon. The difference between printing currency and mining is that you have to ability to print money on demand, while mining is limited to whatever is available to extract at a given time. The rising price of gold may be contributing to increased production, as low-grade ore that wasn't economically viable to work with in the 1980's are now affordable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ade3fd091361ec8f9583fdbc5e25aee",
"text": "@Michael Kjörling answered why platinum is in demand like it is. But it missed some of the significant risks so I will address some of them. Platinum is much more rare than gold. But not because there is less platinum than gold just that the known existing platinum veins are smaller and more disbursed. So if a large vein were found it could have a significant impact on the availability and thus reducing price of platinum. New mining technologies are being developed every day. One of these could make exacting platinum from existing not platinum mines easier and more cost effective again increasing the availability and reducing the price of platinum. The vast majority of platinum use today is for emissions controls. There is a lot of money being thrown into research on green energy and technologies. One of these technologies or a side effect of other research could result in much more cost effective ways to combat emissions. Should that happen I would expect the price of platinum to fall through the floor and potentially never recover. I do not think any of these scenarios are imminent. But the risks that they present are so great it is important to consider them before investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f416e822c8eb187414af66b992c6054d",
"text": "No, it doesn't matter how powerful the machines are that do the mining. The system balances it out (increases the difficulty) so that one block is mined every 10 minutes, regardless of whether there's 500 miners in the world or 50 million, it will always be around 10 minutes (sometimes 9 and sometimes 11 though). And one block used to be 50BTC, but every 4 years this halves and so in 100 years the supply increase will be almost 0, miners will still get the transaction fees though. This means bitcoin is limited to a supply of less than 21 million. Which creates the scarcity. There's possibly a problem though. Quantum computing might not increase the supply but it could potentially decrypt the encryption, but if that happens the whole internet and digital world will be in trouble and not just bitcoin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0050f863ef36b0db197df6b4660bee87",
"text": "blockchain.info has all the most recent stats. 264,360 bitcoins traded in the last 24 hours. About [16.5 Million](http://moderninvestor.io/how-many-bitcoins-have-been-mined/) exist right now. Here is how they make more bitcoins >12.5 [bitcoins per block](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin) (approximately every ten minutes) until mid 2020,[7] and then afterwards 6.25 bitcoins per block for 4 years until next halving. This halving continues until 2110–40, when 21 million bitcoins will have been issued. None of that is really making the price going up. There is not a shortage of bitcoins. There are just more people wanting to buy bitcoin right now then there are people who want to sale. So on the exchanges people keep offering to buy at a higher and higher price. Competing with each other causing the price to go up. It'll probably hit a peak and drop back down to 4k or so. That seems to be the trend with bitcoin. Climb real high, dip down to about halfway up that climb, level off, time goes by, peak again. Repeat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ac2209c513ee6c964e7277b426315ba",
"text": "Gold is a commodity. It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such. In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted. A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it. There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities. Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high. A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out. Just like any other business. High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation. It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury. There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation. If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised. You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government. Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing. If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so. And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1b3b75b7f7d2399f069f84668f5936e4",
"text": "The continent of Africa has lots of natural resources, but did not fare as well as the USA, so that alone doesn't explain everything. However, there was mass migration from the old world to the new world for the entire US history. 88 people control more wealth than the poorest half of the world (3.6B people or whatever). That is a relatively meaningless statistic, alone. Thanks to automation and globalization, intellectual property, and access to capital, I see the trend continuing until 9 people control 99.9999999% of the world's wealth. I may look up Ricardian theory.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f9847f7b6ee037d2b5ce638f730adb0",
"text": "First is storage which is a big and a detrimental headache. Security is another big headache. Investing in precious metal has always been an investment opportunity in the countries in the east i.e. India and China because of cultural reason and due to absence of investment opportunities for the less fortunate ones. It isn't the case so in the West. Secondly what is the right an opportune moment is open to question. When the worlwide economy is up and running, that is probably the time to buy i.e. people would like to put money in use rather than store. The saying goes the other way when the economy is stagnating. Then there is also the case of waiting out the bad periods to sell your gold and silver. If you do want to buy precious metals then use a service like BullionVault, rather than doing those yourself. It takes care of the 2 big headaches, I mentioned earlier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea59ac7efc1564bd9772aec0fc73a5c",
"text": "\"It's not clear that anything needs to go up if gold goes down. In a bubble, asset prices can just collapse, without some other asset increasing to compensate. Economies are not a zero-sum game. On the other hand, gold may fall when people decide they don't need to hoard some store of value that, to their minds, never changes. It could very well indicate that there is more confidence in the broader economy. I am not a gold bug, so I don't much see the point in \"\"investing\"\" in something that is non-productive and also inedible, but to each his own.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07da716d1d8347d82b6dc1b3a03cfbd2",
"text": "Some countries are considering stocking up on gold to shore up their notes. (Or so I heard) If this happens, gold will obviously become more rare. The price will then be valued not only by the buying and selling of it but also by the forced rarity of it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af6fc06890c6a15e9c4c5206ac646982",
"text": "Since 2007 the world has seen a period of striking economic and financial volatility featuring the deepest recession since the 1930s despite this gold has performed strongly with its price roughly doubling since the global financial crisis began in mid-2007. 1. Gold and real interest rates: One of the factor that influences gold prices is real interest rate which is to some extent related to inflation. Since gold lacks a yield of its own, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases with a real interest rate increase and decreases with a fall in real interest rates. 2. Gold and the US dollar: The external value of the US dollar has been a significant influence on short-term gold price movements. The IMF estimated6 in 2008 that 40-50% of the moves in the gold price since 2002 were dollar-related, with a 1% change in the effective external value of the dollar leading to a more than 1% change in the gold price (Source). 3. Gold and financial stress: It is a significant and commonly observed influence on the short-term price of gold. In periods of financial stress gold demand may rise for a number of reasons: 4. Gold and political instability: It is another factor that can boost gold prices. Investor concerns about wars, civil conflicts and international tensions can boost demand for gold for similar reasons to those noted above for periods of financial stress. Gold‟s potential function as a „currency of last resort‟ in case of serious system collapse provides a particular incentive to hold it in case the political situation is especially severe. (Source) 5. Gold and official sector activity: The behaviour of central banks and other parts of the official sector can have an important impact on gold prices. One reason for this is that central banks are big holders of gold, possessing some 30,500 metric tons in 2010, which is approximately 15% of all above-ground gold stocks. As a result, central bank policies on gold sales and purchases can have significant effects, and these policies have been subject to considerable shifts over the decades. (Source) (Source of above graphs)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c0be7f8345f898877a01ab341b099da",
"text": "\"Platinum use is pretty heavily overweight in industrial areas; according to the linked Wikipedia article, 239 tonnes of platinum was sold in 2006, of which 130 tonnes went to vehicles emissions control devices and another 13.3 tonnes to electronics. Gold sees substantial use as an investment as well as to hedge against economical decline and inflation, with comparatively little industrial (\"\"real world\"\", as some put it) use. That is their principal difference from an investment point of view. According to Wikipedia's article on platinum, ... during periods of economic uncertainty, the price of platinum tends to decrease due to reduced industrial demand, falling below the price of gold. Gold prices are more stable in slow economic times, as gold is considered a safe haven and gold demand is not driven by industrial uses. If your investment scenario is a tanking world economy, for reason of its large industrial usage, I for one would not count on platinum to not fall in price. Of course gold may fall in price as well, but since it is not primarily an industrial use commodity, I would personally expect gold to do better in such a scenario.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50b52264b9409f57b1b597876e96528a",
"text": "Technically, you could improve your odds in this hypothetical pre-apocolyptic economy by diversifying your digital and tangible precious-metal-commodity portfolio by going in with gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and others. That being said I'm not sure if one can access tangible stores of all these metals...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdffb915d0dd1bd742154da933a60b2b",
"text": "The points given by DumbCoder are very valid. Diversifying portfolio is always a good idea. Including Metals is also a good idea. Investing in single metal though may not be a good idea. •Silver is pretty cheap now, hopefully it will be for a while. •Silver is undervalued compared to gold. World reserve ratio is around 1 to 11, while price is around 1 to 60. Both the above are iffy statements. Cheap is relative term ... there are quite a few metals more cheaper than Silver [Copper for example]. Undervalued doesn't make sense. Its a quesiton of demand and supply. Today Industrial use of Silver is more widespread, and its predecting future what would happen. If you are saying Silver will appreciate more than other metals, it again depends on country and time period. There are times when even metals like Copper have given more returns than Silver and Gold. There is also Platinum to consider. In my opinion quite a bit of stuff is put in undervalued ... i.e. comparing reserve ratio to price in absolute isn't right comparing it over relative years is right. What the ratio says is for every 11 gms of silver, there is 1 gm of Gold and the price of this 1 gm is 60 times more than silver. True. And nobody tell is the demand of Silver 60 times more than Gold or 11 times more than Gold. i.e. the consumption. What is also not told is the cost to extract the 11 gms of silver is less than cost of 1 gm of Gold. So the cheapness you are thinking is not 100% true.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e60a46a6bd279cd62dd8362044bd0cd6
|
Should I switch/rollover my IRA to a Gold IRA at Regal Assets?
|
[
{
"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": "9a55bf800e3b8318039ed73b974c6f75",
"text": "Advantages of Gold IRA (regardless of where you're holding it): Disadvantages of Gold IRA: Instead, you can invest in trust funds like SLV (The ETF for silver) or GLD in your regular brokerage IRA. These funds negotiate their prices of storage, are relatively liquid, and shield you from the dangers of owning physical metal while providing opportunity to invest in it at market prices.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "db335a248bc9fc882e92419a5ed646ff",
"text": "I am assuming that you are talking about rolling a 401k over to an IRA since if you were rolling over to another 401k you probably would not have a choice as to where it would be. Ameriprise will generally have lower fees than JPMorgan. (Probably why your husband's mutual fund is with Ameriprise.) Additionally having both accounts with Ameriprise will better allow them to assist you with your long term financial planning. For these two reasons I would recommend rolling your account over to Ameriprise. No, I do not work for Ameriprise",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5aa979140c977b298717a423bd1af39",
"text": "\"I don't think there's a rule -- (I can't comment) but Brick cited IRS rules...but IMO Brick missed one thing -- @ashur668 is not looking for a distribution, but is looking for a rollover. My best guess: that this part of the ruleset is not well defined, and your (and my) employer have chosen to interpret any withdrawl as a \"\"distribution\"\", even if better characterized a rollover. A few months ago, I went so far as to explore if I could use a loophole -- my company had just gone through a merger; I was hoping I could rollover some or maybe all of my 401k to my IRA (I remember now, it would have been everything before starting roth 401k contributions). My company asserted this was not permitted, and further asserted that the rumors I had heard were mistaken that when we went through a company spin-off a few years before, that nobody under 59 1/2 was permitted to roll over. I did a quick search and found IRS topic 413 As far as I can tell, this topic is silent on the matter at hand. Topic 413 referred me to IRS Publication 575, where I started looking at the section on rollovers. I read some of it then got bored. Note that we're one step removed -- we are reading IRS publications and interpretations of IRS rules. I don't know that anybody here has read the actual tax law. There may be something in there that prevents companies from rolling over before 59 1/2 that is not well codified in IRS publications.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f16c76a2696d6a1c2ed33abc20bb70c5",
"text": "\"You ask about \"\"traditional IRA VS taxable (non-retirement) investment account.\"\" You already know about tax deductible IRAs, which are similar, mostly, to your 401(k). A Traditional IRA can have a non-deducted component. In a sense, it then functions similar to the fully pre-tax IRA as it grows tax free, but then withdrawals are made and taxes paid on the pro-rated not-yet-taxed money. It also offers the simple conversion to a Roth IRA. For those who have no current IRA with pre-tax money, a conversion will be tax free, for those with an existing pretax IRA, conversions are prorated for tax due, if the account had say $10,000, and $5,000 was post-tax, any conversion will have half taxed at your marginal rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56c02b180ce5bd2911593743154dff9d",
"text": "Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you don't need to move your assets into a new type of account to accomplish your goal of letting your money grow in a low cost vanguard index fund. Simply reallocate your assets within the Inherited IRA. If the brokerage you're in doesn't meet your needs (high transaction fees, no access to the Vanguard funds you're interested in) you can always move to a low cost brokerage. The new brokerage can help you transfer your assets so that the Inherited IRA remains intact. You will not have a tax burden if you do this reallocation and you'll be able to feel good about your diversification with a low cost index fund. You will, however, have to pay taxes on your RMD. Since you're young I can't imagine that your RMD will be greater than the $5k you can invest in a Roth IRA. If it is, you can open a personal account and keep letting the the money grow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "917d06f07b6ae6cb031bcbaebc4fe133",
"text": "\"Taxes are triggered when you sell the individual stock. The IRS doesn't care which of your accounts the money is in. They view all your bank and brokerage accounts as if they are one big account mashed together. That kind of lumping is standard accounting practice for businesses. P/L, balance sheets, cash flow statements etc. will clump cash accounts as \"\"cash\"\". Taxes are also triggered when they pay you a dividend. That's why ETFs are preferable to mutual funds; ETFs automatically fold the dividends back into the ETF's value, so it doesn't cause a taxable event. Less paperwork. None of the above applies to retirement accounts. They are special. You don't report activity inside retirement accounts, because it would be very hard for regular folk to do that reporting, so that would discourage them from taking IRAs. Taxes are paid at withdrawal time (or in Roth's, never.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22028b9b164f152a7d630d133b5eaffe",
"text": "3 Yes, a big yes, it cannot go into the account it came from. Then both accounts >can't be touched for a year. 3) Actually it looks like you can reinvest it in the same IRA account. Based on IRS publication 590 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch01.html You can withdraw, tax free, all or part of the assets from one traditional IRA if you reinvest them within 60 days in the same or another traditional IRA. Because this is a rollover, you cannot deduct the amount that you reinvest in an IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a73a32e9c0c175cc10a1014387ee433f",
"text": "\"Your are mixing multiple questions with assertions which may or may not be true. So I'll take a stab at this, comment if it doesn't make sense to you. To answer the question in the title, you invest in an IRA because you want to save money to allow you to retire. The government provides you with tax incentives that make an IRA an excellent vehicle to do this. The rules regarding IRA tax treatment provide disincentives, through tax penalties, for withdrawing money before retirement. This topic is covered dozens of times, so search around for more detail. Regarding your desire to invest in items with high \"\"intrinsic\"\" value, I would argue that gold and silver are not good vehicles for doing this. Intrinsic value doesn't mean what you want it to mean in this context -- gold and silver are commodities, whose prices fluctuate dramatically. If you want to grow money for retirement over a long period, of time, you should be invested in diversified collection of investments, and precious metals should be a relatively small part of your portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65d0e65fc15b89d957ea8f4aacf84849",
"text": "Brokerages are supposed to keep your money separate from theirs. So, even if they fail as a company, your money and investments are still there, and can be transferred to another brokerage. It doesn't matter if it's an IRA or taxable account. Of course, as is the case with MF Global, if illegally take their client's money (i.e., steal), it may be a different story. In such cases, SIPC covers up to $500K, of which $250K can be cash, as JoeTaxpayer said. You may be interested in the following news item from the SEC. It's about some proposed changes, but to frame the proposal they lay out the way it is now: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-128.htm The most relevant quote: The Customer Protection Rule (Rule 15c3-3). This SEC rule requires a broker-dealer to segregate customer securities and cash from the firm’s proprietary business activities. If the broker-dealer fails, these customer assets should be readily available to be returned to customers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "b96a32d7ef61a8997c029cfe86745804",
"text": "It is not absolutely clear that transitioning all your retirement money from mutual funds, stocks, bonds, CDs etc to an annuity (either now, or just before retirement) is the best decision, especially once you are old enough to have to take Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs). The IRS says in Publication 590 Distributions from individual retirement annuities. If your traditional IRA is an individual retirement annuity, special rules apply to figuring the required minimum distribution. For more information on rules for annuities, see Regulations section 1.401(a)(9)-6. These regulations can be read in many libraries, IRS offices, and online at IRS.gov. I would recommend talking to a tax accountant before going your proposed route.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7efc2dd021ddf9a2a03b9622a11cf2a",
"text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fff73a674758f0ff127dcfb637b8dc0a",
"text": "Right you **don't** ever want to use that account for your traditional 401k rollovers. Realistically, you could *probably* still have it reclassified as a traditional IRA and roll your traditional 401ks into it, which was basically your original idea except none of the funds would be Roth; but if you see yourself ever potentially contributing to a Roth IRA going forward (which makes all the more sense if you have only traditional 401k funds in your retirement portfolio so far), there's nothing *wrong* with having both types of IRA at the same time. But no, don't cross the streams! :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a5868f2c408ae8be508c3de121f711",
"text": "Rolling a 401(k) to an IRA should be your default best option. Rolling a 401(k) to another 401(k) is rarely the best option, but that does happen. I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. In all other cases, I rolled 401(k)s from previous jobs to my Rollover IRA, which gave me the most freedom of investment options. Finally, with 401(k)-to-Roth IRA rollovers, it's important to decouple two concepts so you can analyze it as a sum of two transactions:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2284266afb6b9f175e37d333d58bd9eb",
"text": "\"Assuming my math is correct and that I'm not missing something about Roth investments, it appears to me that either option will work out exactly the same if you will be in the same tax bracket in retirement. This is true only if your average tax rate in retirement is the same as your current marginal rate. I'm surprised none of the answers mention this since it is the crux of your question! If you can deduct an IRA against your income taxes, it is almost always better option than the Roth equivalent. Marginal rates should not be compared to average rates or you will form all sorts of inaccurate conclusions. \"\"If you are in a lower tax rate in retirement traditional is better\"\" really means, \"\"if your average tax rate in retirement is lower than your current marginal rate, traditional is better\"\" - which for the overwhelming majority of Americans is the case. Consider the following. Let's say your intend to contribute $1000 in one year (making $2k) and withdraw it the next that is your only income in that year. Your tax brackets look like: This is quite simplified but for this purpose will illustrate precisely why comparisons like you are making are very misleading. In this case you can put $1000 in and pay no income tax at all (because you deduct it). You then withdraw $1000 the next year. The first $500 you withdraw you pay no taxes on and the next $500 has a tax rate of 15%, for a total tax of of $75. However - this is a tax against your entire withdrawal of $1000, so your average tax rate (this is important! average is different than marginal) is only 7.5% and you are left with $925. In this case you can only contribute $850 to the IRA because you are taxed against the money at your marginal rate (15%). When you withdraw it, you don't pay any taxes and are left with the entire $850 $850. This is less than the above, because you are taxed the whole amount at your previous marginal rate. If however your tax rate in retirement was 30% for everything above $500, only then are the two scenarios equal. Your marginal tax rate in retirement has to be very high relative to your current tax rate for the Roth to ever catch up and be better. If you are able to deduct an IRA contribution, it will almost always be the best option. The average federal income tax rate on middle class families has not changed dramatically enough over the past 50 years to be above normal marginal tax rates - even at the 15% federal tax bracket, your marginal rate is still higher than the highest average tax rate for the past 50 years by at least 3% and normally significantly so. The reason I make this point about middle class marginal rates is that the majority of \"\"taxes might be higher in retirement!\"\" is very unlikely to be the case in a meaningful way given the past 50 years. However if you are in the top tax rate you are paying historic low tax rates (by a factor of nearly 3), but also observe you can't do either IRA since you must make $400k/year. The difference for middle class is no where near as noticeable. Keep in mind if you can't deduct, there is no reason to not contribute to the Roth. There are other factors contributing to the traditional/Roth decision. This answer only addresses the specifics in your question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ed05ba03b5f9286a96d556596e82a02",
"text": "\"What you're describing is a non-deductible traditional IRA. That is what happens when your employer 401K or your high income disqualifies gou from using a traditional IRA the normal way. Yes, non-deductible traditional IRAs are stupid.** Now let's be clear on the mechanism behind the difference. There's an axiom of tax law that the same money can't be taxed twice. This is baked so deep into tax law that it often isn't even specified particularly. The IRS is not allowed to impose tax on money already taxed, i.e. The original contribution on an ND Trad IRA. So this is not a new kind of IRA, it is simply a Trad IRA with an asterisk. **But then, some say so are deductible traditional IRAs when compared to the Roth. The real power of an ND Trad IRA is that it can be converted to Roth at all income levels. This is called the \"\"Roth Backdoor\"\". It combines three factors. Contribute to an ND Trad IRA, stick it in a money market/sweep fund, and a week later convert to Roth, pay taxes on the 17 cents of growth in the sweep fund since the rest was already taxed. The net effect is to work the same as a Roth contribution - not tax deductible, becomes a Roth, and is not taxed on distribution. If you already have traditional IRA money that you contributed that wasn't taxed, this really screws things up. Because you can't segment or LIFO your IRA money, the IRS considers it one huge bucket, and requires you draw in proportion. EEK! Suppose you contribute $5000 to an IRA in a non-deductible mode. But you also have a different IRA funded with pretax money that now has $45,000. As far as IRS is concerned, you have one $50,000 IRA and only $5000 (10%) is post-tax. You convert $5000 to Roth and IRS says 90% of that money is taxable, since it's the same pool of money. You owe taxes on all of it less the $500 fraction that was pre-taxed, and $4500 of already-taxed IRA remains in the account. The math gets totally out-of-hand after just a couple of conversions. Your best bet is to convert the whole shebang at one time -- and to avoid a monstrous tax hit, do this in a gap year.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
971affea2ce998ad872a916d12a91672
|
How do you find reasonably priced, quality, long lasting clothing?
|
[
{
"docid": "c48155123bdf182f41b463d4c74562ae",
"text": "On the quality angle a big part of it is experience, but the biggest thing is careful observation. You have to take a close, critical look at any article of clothing. (This holds true for just about any purchase.) As far as finding them for reasonable prices it's the usual thing: sales and buying them second-hand. Finally, regarding maintenance:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "664ce5eb58362d39930520f5e54f6310",
"text": "The idea that you should buy quality, long lasting clothes shouldn't go unchallenged. It's just not true for everybody. If you have a job or a lifestyle that makes it so your clothes are going to get worn out fast regardless of quality, buying expensive clothes doesn't make sense. With that said: look for heavier-feeling fabrics, avoid colors that will fade (or worse: bleed into your other clothes in the wash). Check the laundry instructions so you can see whether they're on the delicate end of the spectrum. Re: how to extend the life: avoid bleach. Even color safe bleach contains peroxide which can break down fabrics faster.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54a445ed4a0af699f5b0ac64fa97255c",
"text": "Use resources like Consumer Reports and recommendations from like-minded friends to figure out brands which have a reputation for making quality clothes. Then trust, but verify. Ideally have a friend who sews a lot go with you on a clothing expedition if you don't know how to determine quality in clothing. People who sew knew their fabrics, and this could be very helpful to you. Start at places that are known for quality clothing, but make sure the reputation hasn't outlived reality. I'd look for: Once you've identified places that you can trust, wait for sales at those stores. I've found that shopping sales at department stores (or better, places like L. L. Bean) is cheaper than a discount retailer and much easier. Even cheaper, go to a thrift store and look for those brands in timeless styles. Your mileage will vary in terms of the what people throw out in your area. Thrift stores work extremely well in high cost of living areas where people give away nearly new items.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85310efc673c825bf8a414999cdf0ff2",
"text": "Are specific brand recommendations allowed? I'm a big fan of Lands' End. They have good quality clothing at reasonable prices in all the basic styles. They have great customer service and you con order online and avoid clothes shopping at the mall (which I hate).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a53754b86746bae0943ef36cb00374b",
"text": "According to this http://shine.yahoo.com/event/financiallyfit/cheapest-days-to-shop-online-2301854/ Tuesday is the best day of the week to buy men's apparel.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "737ae21dbe4d97bbfa38d61400848399",
"text": "The best way to find good quality is to check the garment tag: What kind of material is it made of? Jersey 100% cotton or any 100% cotton is one of the best quality material for most casual clothing. Then, you should touch it (designer step/touching). You will get better along the way. If you think you will like it, it may be a good quality. You should try it. and look for similar material when shopping. It does not matter the store where you shop, you should check the garment quality because even at the expensive stores you can find bad quality. Quality in Stitch: you should check the the garment stitch, look at the top and underneath stitches, watch for good and consist stitching pattern. especially the sides and armholes underneath of the garment. Style is something personal. Everybody has different style, but stores are classified by age targeting. If you can find a store that usually made your style, good quality material at reasonable price. you should consider shop there. Most of the time, it will cost a little bit more or much more. BUT CHEAP IS EXPENSIVE!! you end up spending more money at the end of the year. Reasonable means a fair price for both parties, You and the seller. Neither cheap or expensive.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "645f3af95a25383d388d8d95adaca232",
"text": "For the CPI, there is actually federal employees whose job it is to visit various stores to collect the prices of specific items (boy's size-14 collared shirt made of 97 percent cotton). Planet Money did a great podcast on this, actually following one of these people for a day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6249769e1863bcae3d9c17157119480f",
"text": "\"Zero? Ten grand? Somewhere in the middle? It depends. Your stated salary, in U.S. dollars, would be high five-figures (~$88k). You certainly should not be starving, but with decent contributions toward savings and retirement, money can indeed be tight month-to-month at that salary level, especially since even in Cardiff you're probably paying more per square foot for your home than in most U.S. markets (EDIT: actually, 3-bedroom apartments in Cardiff, according to Numbeo, range from £750-850, which is US$1200-$1300, and for that many bedrooms you'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of deal in a good infield neighborhood of the DFW Metro, and good luck getting anywhere close to downtown New York, LA, Miami, Chicago etc for that price. What job do you do, and how are you expected to dress for it? Depending on where you shop and what you buy, a quality dress shirt and dress slacks will cost between US$50-$75 each (assuming real costs are similar for the same brands between US and UK, that's £30-£50 per shirt and pair of pants for quality brands). I maintain about a weeks' wardrobe at this level of dress (my job allows me to wear much cheaper polos and khakis most days and I have about 2 weeks' wardrobe of those) and I typically have to replace due to wear or staining, on average, 2 of these outfits a year (I'm hard on clothes and my waistline is expanding). Adding in 3 \"\"business casual\"\" outfits each year, plus casual outfits, shoes, socks, unmentionables and miscellany, call it maybe $600(£400)/year in wardrobe. That doesn't generally get metered out as a monthly allowance (the monthly amount would barely buy a single dress shirt or pair of slacks), but if you're socking away a savings account and buying new clothes to replace old as you can afford them it's a good average. I generally splurge in months when the utilities companies give me a break and when I get \"\"extra\"\" paychecks (26/year means two months have 3 checks, effectively giving me a \"\"free\"\" check that neither pays the mortgage nor the other major bills). Now, that's just to maintain my own wardrobe at a level of dress that won't get me fired. My wife currently stays home, but when she worked she outspent me, and her work clothes were basic black. To outright replace all the clothes I wear regularly with brand-new stuff off the rack would easily cost a grand, and that's for the average U.S. software dev who doesn't go out and meet other business types on a daily basis. If I needed to show up for work in a suit and tie daily, I'd need a two-week rotation of them, plus dress shirts, and even at the low end of about $350 (£225) per suit, $400 (£275) with dress shirt and tie, for something you won't be embarrassed to wear, we're talking $4000 (£2600) to replace and $800 (£520) per year to update 2 a year, not counting what I wear underneath or on the weekends. And if I wore suits I'd probably have to update the styles more often than that, so just go ahead and double it and I turn over my wardrobe once every 5 years. None of this includes laundering costs, which increase sharply when you're taking suits to the cleaners weekly versus just throwing a bunch of cotton-poly in the washing machine. What hobbies or other entertainment interests do you and your wife have? A movie ticket in the U.S. varies between $7-$15 depending on the size of the screen and 2D vs 3D screenings. My wife and I currently average less than one theater visit a month, but if you took in a flick each weekend with your wife, with a decent $50 dinner out, that's between $260-$420 (£165-270) monthly in entertainment expenses. Not counting babysitting for the little one (the going rate in the US is between $10 and $20 an hour for at-home child-sitting depending on who you hire and for how long, how often). Worst-case, without babysitting that's less than 5% of your gross income, but possibly more than 10% of your take-home depending on UK effective income tax rates (your marginal rate is 40% according to the HMRC, unless you find a way to deduct about £30k of your income). That's just the traditional American date night, which is just one possible interest. Playing organized sports is more or less expensive depending on the sport. Soccer (sorry, football) just needs a well-kept field, two goals and and a ball. Golf, while not really needing much more when you say it that way, can cost thousands of dollars or pounds a month to play with the best equipment at the best courses. Hockey requires head-to-toe padding/armor, skates, sticks, and ice time. American football typically isn't an amateur sport for adults and has virtually no audience in Europe, but in the right places in the U.S., beginning in just a couple years you'd be kitting your son out head-to-toe not dissimilar to hockey (minus sticks) and at a similar cost, and would keep that up at least halfway through high school. I've played them all at varying amateur levels, and with the possible exception of soccer they all get expensive when you really get interested in them. How much do you eat, and of what?. My family of three's monthly grocery budget is about $300-$400 (£190-£260) depending on what we buy and how we buy it. Americans have big refrigerators (often more than one; there's three in my house of varying sizes), we buy in bulk as needed every week to two weeks, we refrigerate or freeze a lot of what we buy, and we eat and drink a lot of high-fructose corn-syrup-based crap that's excise-taxed into non-existence in most other countries. I don't have real-world experience living and grocery-shopping in Europe, but I do know that most shopping is done more often, in smaller quantities, and for more real food. You might expect to spend £325 ($500) or more monthly, in fits and starts every few days, but as I said you'd probably know better than me what you're buying and what it's costing. To educate myself, I went to mysupermarket.co.uk, which has what I assume are typical UK food prices (mostly from Tesco), and it's a real eye-opener. In the U.S., alcohol is much more expensive for equal volume than almost any other drink except designer coffee and energy drinks, and we refrigerate the heck out of everything anyway, so a low-budget food approach in the U.S. generally means nixing beer and wine in favor of milk, fruit juices, sodas and Kool-Aid (or just plain ol' tap water). A quick search on MySupermarkets shows that wine prices average a little cheaper, accounting for the exchange rate, as in the States (that varies widely even in the U.S., as local and state taxes for beer, wine and spirits all differ). Beer is similarly slightly cheaper across the board, especially for brands local to the British Isles (and even the Coors Lite crap we're apparently shipping over to you is more expensive here than there), but in contrast, milk by the gallon (4L) seems to be virtually unheard of in the UK, and your half-gallon/2-liter jugs are just a few pence cheaper than our going rate for a gallon (unless you buy \"\"organic\"\" in the US, which carries about a 100% markup). Juices are also about double the price depending on what you're buying (a quart of \"\"Innocent\"\" OJ, roughly equivalent in presentation to the U.S. brand \"\"Simply Orange\"\", is £3 while Simply Orange is about the same price in USD for 2 quarts), and U.S.-brand \"\"fizzy drinks\"\" are similarly at a premium (£1.98 - over $3 - for a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola). With the general preference for room-temperature alcohol in Europe giving a big advantage to the longer unrefrigerated shelf lives of beer and wine, I'm going to guess you guys drink more alcohol and water with dinner than Americans. Beef is cheaper in the U.S., depending on where you are and what you're buying; prices for store-brand ground beef (you guys call it \"\"minced\"\") of the grade we'd use for hamburgers and sauces is about £6 per kilo in the UK, which works out to about $4.20/lb, when we're paying closer to $3/lb in most cities. I actually can't remember the last time I bought fresh chicken on the bone, but the average price I'm seeing in the UK is £10/kg ($7/lb) which sounds pretty steep. Anyway, it sounds like shopping for American tastes in the UK would cost, on average, between 25-30% more than here in the US, so applying that to my own family's food budget, you could easily justify spending £335 a month on food.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e5f422023e165364beb530f63b9b19c",
"text": "Given the universal crisis and how difficult it’s to gross money these days, people are reconsidering allowances and wise money management. Louis vuitton online sale are virtually each where, however sadly, only a certain folks are able to purchase them with the costly rate tags that come along with them. But, designer bargains really are the stuffs to scout for when it’s the matter of new designer fashion at a much more reasonable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6931d197725d642af6e205046315f1b0",
"text": "Get ready to impress people around you. Just opt for Men’s linen vests that never go out of fashion& make you look smart every time you wear them. Go for smart, casual tailored look this summer. There are a number of choices available, reflect your best style with Men’s linen vest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3943b7471b6efa9074161cf5168f967",
"text": "Smart. Add in daily necessities like toothpaste, disposable razors and toilet paper and you've got Walmart and Costco by the balls. Most people are spending their money on consumables and are much more conservative these days. If I were them I'd stick to food and the daily needs and not even bother with clothing and furniture and such. Keep it simple I think. In and out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0d07234351928020532712416bfd150",
"text": "Years ago, Costco had amazing quality made in italy wool pants. The quality to price ratio was unbelievable. They stopped getting them from the italian manufacturer and they suck now. I imagine that Costco did what you were talking about. In the end, it was bad for the customer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00c7990716b67fbb8f3fc247169a0789",
"text": "You're missing out by not buying shirts online. I guess it depends on the type of shirt, but I'll never buy a men's dress shirt in a store again outside of an emergency. In store shirts are always crazy expensive, poor quality, and a terrible fit. Online I can get the precise size, fabric, and construction I want, for about a third cheaper than in store.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f45108e61b6b73dc098892517e82086a",
"text": "\"Best strategy that has worked for me is to remember first of all that you hardly ever need anything \"\"right now\"\". Try this: if you see something you want to buy, leave it for at least two weeks, better yet a month. If after that time you have hardly thought about it, then you almost certainly don't need it. But if you've thought quite a lot about owning it and how it will be beneficial, then perhaps it's worth picking up. You will probably find that a small percentage of things you'd like to buy make it through that screening period.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84a39ac68628341d9ed01aaf95797520",
"text": "I speak as a person without kids, but I'll give this a shot anyway, using my memory of the perspective I had when I was a kid. My advice is, if the kids are young enough to not care much, don't be afraid of the thrift store. My parents got a bunch of clothes from the thrift store as I was growing up (around elementary school age) and I didn't care at all. When I got to be older, (middle school age) shopping at Target and K-mart didn't seem bad either. By the time the kids are old enough to really care beyond, they are probably old enough to get their own part-time jobs and get their own clothing. I however, am probably naive, as I still care little for such things, and judging from popular culture, most care about them a great deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c8d3cc94e14c1df6018f1436806179e",
"text": "Fining fitting plus size clothes for men can be quite a frustrating process. Most stores will only stock regular sizes for clothes. However, there are options that a plus size wearer can pursue. For years XXLLENT have pride in producing well made large men's plus size clothing for big and curvy men.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40d286a9dc6a851f6aaffc86d1ef4c92",
"text": "With our “Budget Closeouts” you can save a lot of money as we are agents and Buy closeout Apparel have a more affordable Towels and Bath items than other closeout sources. All products are below general costs. Purchase a few plenty and get even larger discounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f744b5ad272acd5f438d51544aaee43",
"text": "Fashioncornerstone.com is an amazing online store in the USA from where you can purchase the most stylish stuffs for men and women at very reasonable prices. Free Delivery Available in the USA! Get up to 80% off all summer!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c09e215e6a32255c048d38b6554d40d4",
"text": "Long term taxation cannot by itself surpress GDP if those same taxes are being used on goods and services. It can surpress growth, and cause a fall off if people are leaving the area or closing businesses but at some point it'll hit an equilibrium point. GDP does include government spending after all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35d91a387845c71bad1e0be0ab7a2293",
"text": "\"Only you can decide whether it's wise or not given your own personal circumstances. Brexit is certainly a big risk, and noone can really know what will happen yet. The specific worries you mention are certainly valid. Additionally you might find it hard to keep your job or get a new one if the economy turns bad, and in an extreme \"\"no deal\"\" scenario you might find yourself forced to leave - though I think that's very unlikely. House prices could also collapse leaving you in \"\"negative equity\"\". If you're planning on staying in the same location in the UK for a long time, a house tends to be a worthwhile investment, particularly as you always need somewhere to live, so owning it is a \"\"hedge\"\" against prices rising. Even if prices do fall, you do still have somewhere to live. If you're planning on going back to your home country at some point, that reduces the value of owning a house. If you want to reduce your risk, consider getting a mortgage with a long-term fixed rate. There are some available for 10 years, which I'd hope would be enough to get us over most of the Brexit volatility.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c666f296df954574ac27fb4709451a9b
|
How to hedge against specific asset classes at low cost
|
[
{
"docid": "496e19544efadcd778720d5523807ea8",
"text": "\"The essence of hedging is to find an investment that performs well under the conditions that you're concerned about. If you're concerned about China stock dropping, then find something that goes up in value if that asset class goes down. Maybe put options on a Chinese index fund, or selling short one of those funds? Or, if you're already \"\"in the money\"\" on your Chinese stock position, set a stop loss: instruct your broker to sell if that stock hits X or lower. That way you keep some gains or limit your losses. That involves liquidating your position, but if you've had a nice run-up, it may be time to consider selling if you feel that the prospects are dimming.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90d5a9029baab5def0887297b77d4aa6",
"text": "I wonder in this case if it might be easier to look for an emerging markets fund that excludes china, and just shift into that. In years past I know there were a variety of 'Asian tiger' funds that excluded Japan for much the same reason, so these days it would not surprise me if there were similar emerging markets funds that excluded China. I can find some inverse ETF's that basically short the emerging markets as a whole, but not one that does just china. (then again I only spent a little time looking)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fda874738f68f83b73d40aa1db1d01f1",
"text": "You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71e043e167ce5c8f12c06fbd1e32f7b6",
"text": "\"I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold \"\"shares\"\" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs. This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34cd5a23fbe463b0ccd510681344e33d",
"text": "As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "903abaab5eb08ffde6ac2f9d3eafdb09",
"text": "Hedge means protecting downside, and that generally comes at a cost that translates into less upside. Amount of downside you are protecting is directly co-related to the quality of your hedge. For your example to work, the market should invert while you are still solvent; remember Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent And yes, there is nothing guaranteed in life - except tax and death of-course!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5870a774c82a2c63206146627ad55d6",
"text": "Hedge what risk? What is your risk exposure? I don't seem to understand what is your risk factor (is it a basket of metals), if its a non market product you can do the following: 1. Calculate correlation matrix between your basket and potential candidates (mining, etf's etc) 2. Sell the strongest correlation, however be careful as you are not only selling the rare earth prices but also the extraction margin and market risk. 3. Ideally you would find a futures contract or create some way to isolate the rare earths while cancelling out the margins (will be tough!).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e67feb54e0801a51758bca20bb4bbec4",
"text": "I implemented this in MatLab about 10 years back. You just calculate your conditional variance of the required assets (x_i), use matrix multiplication on the correlation matrix (rho_i_j) from the same asset (this could be a point of research but unless you are using extreme conditions on the VaR it makes little difference) then apply a standard Markiowitz optimisation approach. You can then just use simple Sharpe ratio (marginal return over conditional risk) at every point on the efficient frontier. Then choose the maximum Sharpe ratio point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54021fa6f8918e0f14a01e2c971c153b",
"text": "\"Note: I am making a USA-assumption here; keep in mind this answer doesn't necessarily apply to all countries (or even states in the USA). You asked two questions: I'm looking to buy a property. I do not want to take a risk on this property. Its sole purpose is to provide me with a place to live. How would I go about hedging against increasing interest rates, to counter the increasing mortgage costs? To counter increasing interest rates, obtaining a fixed interest rate on a mortgage is the answer, if that's available. As far as costs for a mortgage, that depends, as mortgages are tied to the value of the property/home. If you want a place to live, a piece of property, and want to hedge against possible rising interest rates, a fixed mortgage would work for these goals. Ideally I'd like to not lose money on my property, seeing as I will be borrowing 95% of the property's value. So, I'd like to hedge against interest rates and falling property prices in order to have a risk neutral position on my property. Now we have a different issue. For instance, if someone had opened a fixed mortgage on a home for $500,000, and the housing value plummeted 50% (or more), the person may still have a fixed interest rate protecting the person from higher rates, but that doesn't protect the property value. In addition to that, if the person needed to move for a job, that person would face a difficult choice: move and sell at a loss, or move and rent and face some complications. Renting is generally a good idea for people who (1) have not determined if they'll be in an area for more than 5-10 years, (2) want the flexibility to move if their living costs rises (which may be an issue if they lose wages), (3) don't want to pay property taxes (varies by state), homeowner's insurance, or maintenance costs, (4) enjoy regular negotiation (something which renters can do before re-signing a lease or looking for a new place to live). Again, other conditions can apply to people who favor renting, such as someone might enjoy living in one room out of a house rather than a full apartment or a person who likes a \"\"change of scenes\"\" and moves from one apartment to another for a fresh perspective, but these are smaller exceptions. But with renting, you have nothing to re-sell and no financial asset so far as a property is concerned (thus why some real estate agents refer to it as \"\"throwing away money\"\" which isn't necessarily true, but one should be aware that the money they invest in renting doesn't go into an asset that can be re-sold).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11d7b3a389522f80d9d899b9bff4ec81",
"text": "\"You quickly run into issues of what denotes \"\"similar\"\", and how to construct an appropriate index methodology. For example, do you group all CB arb funds together globally or separate them by country? Is long-bias equity long-short different to no-bias and variable-bias? Is a fund that concentrates on sovereign debt more like a macro fund or a fixed income fund? And so on. By definition, hedge funds try not to mimic their peers, with varying degrees of success. Even if you get through that problem, how do you create the index? You may not be able to get return numbers for all the \"\"similar\"\" funds, and even if you do, how do you weight them? By AUM, or equal weight? There are commercial indices out there (CSFB, Eurekahedge, Marhedge, Barclays, MSCI, etc) but there's no one accepted standard, and it's unlikely that there ever will be as a result. It's certainly interesting to look at your performance versus one of these indices, and many investors do monitor fund performance this way, but to demand strict benchmarking to one of them is a big ask...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55ed816a35a6a9f9914d3b052e86772b",
"text": "tl;dr- libor plus a small (<50bps) spread for S&P500 exposure. larger spread for less liquid/ more esoteric index. a swap is basically just outsourcing balance sheet to a dealer bank. the counterparty (dealer) is shorting you (the fund) the return of the index. to hedge their short, the dealer would borrow funds and buy the stocks in the index. large dealer banks can borrow at basically libor. they'll also expect compensation for the transaction costs of buying the hedge plus a profit on the (small amount) of capital they need to finance this transaction. this will vary based on the size of the portfolio. s&p500 costs maybe 5bps in transaction cost. an EM index costs maybe 50bps. so it will depend on the index. profit to the dealer depends on supply/demand dynamics. sometimes this transaction will be in demand, sometimes the short side will be more valuable. so it depends on the index you're talking about as well as market dynamics. right now for s&p500 exposure, not more than libor plus 50 for a mid-sized fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f4219e263cad0c119c6be7b5291bed7",
"text": "\"This is a very interesting question. Unfortunately, in the way you wrote the question the answer is no. Essentially, you would be asking someone to give you a ~20% return for your cash on something that is almost guaranteed when holding your cash only gets them a <1% return. Would anyone take the other side of that deal? Interestingly though, you can to some extent hedge surprises in health care costs. For instance, investing in the healthcare industry as David Rice suggests is a partial hedge. The prices of those industry stocks already has future expected cost increases included. However, if costs were to jump even higher than expected you would gain some of the added cost you would pay in healthcare back. Not that I recommend this strategy, as you lose diversification, but this is a valid and reasonable reason to slightly overweight american healthcare companies for someone in your situation. Note that the Wiki article you mention talks about hedging surprises as well. \"\"If at planting time the farmer sells a number of wheat futures contracts equivalent to his anticipated crop size, he effectively locks in the price of wheat at that time.\"\" Thinking that way you may actually be able to buy health insurance now for two or three years in the future essentially locking in expected price increases today. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but the best analogy for what financial hedging truly does.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a70568de6258ac4ff20caf60647f630e",
"text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619",
"text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f5297c019677d5e757c6de33dcde6e5",
"text": "When you are putting your money in an index fund, you are not betting your performance against other asset classes but rather against competing investments withing the SAME asset class. The index fund always wins due to two factors: diversity, and lower cost. The lower cost attribute is essentially where you get your performance edge over the longer run. That is why if you look at the universe of mutual funds (where you get your diversification), very few will have beaten the index, assuming they have survived. -Ralph Winters",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e1a355598fe228c3a2011f9a52fdfd1",
"text": "\"I think it's apt to remind that there's no shortcuts, if someone thinks about doing FX fx: - negative sum game (big spread or commissions) - chaos theory description is apt - hard to understand costs (options are insurance and for every trade there is equivalent option position - so unless you understand how those are priced, there's a good chance you're getting a \"\"sh1tty deal\"\" as that Goldman guy famously said) - averaging can help if timing is bad but you could be just getting deeper into the \"\"deal\"\" I just mentioned and giving a smarter counterparty your money could backfire as it's the \"\"ammo\"\" they can use to defend their position. This doesn't apply to your small hedge/trade? Well that's what I thought not long ago too! That's why I mentioned chaos theory. If you can find a party to hedge with that is not hedging with someone who eventually ends up hedging with JPM/Goldman/name any \"\"0 losing days a year\"\" \"\"bank\"\".. Then you may have a point. And contrary to what many may still think, all of the above applies to everything you can think of that has to do with money. All the billions with 0-losing days need to come from somewhere and it's definitely not coming just from couple FX punters.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f43694d6b791a3c2cd5acf2302cdeffa",
"text": "Investopedia does have tutorials about investments in different asset classes. Have you read them ? If you had heard of CFA, you can read their material if you can get hold of it or register for CFA. Their material is quite extensive and primarily designed for newbies. This is one helluva book and advice coming from persons who have showed and proved their tricks. And the good part is loads of advice in one single volume. And what they would suggest is probably opposite of what you would be doing in a hedge fund. And you can always trust google to fish out resources at the click of a button.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
55c2babde33ee3918e13b42c6bf6b335
|
Demurrage vs inflation
|
[
{
"docid": "28cb52ce5df1834d18b6d82d80833025",
"text": "Yes, there's a difference. If you've borrowed $100, then under inflation your salary will (presumably) increase, and tomorrow your debt will only be worth $99. But under demurrage, you'll still owe $100.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1407a11a1bfd45195cc54d12195ad9d1",
"text": "\"In that example, \"\"creating money\"\" could be used interchangeably with \"\"making promises\"\". There's no inflation, and no problem, so long as everyone keeps their promises. Which sounds like a horrifying thing to say about the foundations of the economy, but the remarkable thing is that people mostly do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8de5051f3d7c843f9a9a4f54a71a7b68",
"text": "That's a simplified, layman's argument that you have minunderstood. Inflation has nothing to do with prices of goods, but rather the purchasing power of the money itself. It sounds like the same thing, but the subtle difference is crucial to understanding monetary policy. Look at the counterexample: in places with super high inflation, like Venezuela, people spend their entire paycheck the minute they get it, because it's value is declining. If you don't know that gasoline is an inelastic product, I really can't help you without devoting significant amounts of time to helping you understand a subject that is frequently counterintuitive and hard to understand. You should probably take an economics class. It's fascinating stuff. Suffice to say, literally everyone who studies this stuff agrees that a small amount of controlled inflation is beneficial to keeping money moving rapidly around the economy, spurring growth and activity in production of goods and services. High inflation is very bad. Hyperinflation is worse. Deflation is the worst, though it sounds great to people who don't know what they are talking about. Econ 101. Take it. Love it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34060d3921cc0c6976e1142169c5a267",
"text": "Inflation refers to the money supply. Think of all money being air in a balloon. Inflation is what happens when you blow more air in the balloon. Deflation is what happens when you let air escape. Inflation may cause prices to go up. However there are many scenarios possible in which this does not happen. For example, at the same time of inflation, there might be unemployment, making consumers unable to pay higher prices. Or some important resource (oil) may go down in price (due to political reasons, war has ended etc), compensating for the money having less value. Similarly, peoples wages will tend to rise over time. They have to, otherwise everyone would be earning less, due to inflation. However again there are many scenarios in which wages do not keep up with inflation, or rise much faster. In fact over the past 40 years or so, US wages have not been able to keep up with inflation, making the average worker 'poorer' than 40 years ago. At its core, inflation refers to the value of the money itself. As all values of other products, services, assets etc are expressed in terms of money which itself also changes value, this can quickly become very complex. Most countries calculate inflation by averaging the price change of a basket of goods that are supposed to represent the average Joe's spending pattern. However these methods are often criticized as they would be 'hiding' inflation. The hidden inflation may come back later to bite us.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94f4b3bad0673cfc2d66983ab898f89d",
"text": "What you said is technically correct. But the implication OP might get from that statement is wrong. If the Fed buys bonds and nominal yields go down (Sometimes they might even go up if it meant the market expected the Fed's actions to cause more inflation), inflation expectations don't go down unless real yields as measured by TIPs stay still.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bfae4ee3ce21e5318f8c77e2a1927e1",
"text": "I would use neither method. Taking a short example first, with just three compounding periods, with interest rate 10%. The start value y0 is 1. So after three years the value is 1.331, the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3. Depreciating (like inflation) by 10% (to demonstrate) gets us back to y0 = 1 Appreciating and depreciating by 10% cancels out: Appreciating by 10% interest and depreciating by 3% inflation: This is the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3 (1 + 0.03)^-3 = 1.21805 So for 50 years the result is y0 (1 + 0.1)^50 (1 + 0.03)^-50 = 26.7777 Note You can of course use subtraction but the not using the inflation figure directly. E.g. (edit: This appears to be the Fisher equation.) 2nd Note Further to comments, here is a chart to illustrate how much the relative performance improves when inflation is accounted for. The first fund's return is 6% and the second fund's return varies from 3% to 6%. Inflation is 3%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6a0cddee37083f56a9630e1a143bc67",
"text": "This is subject to some amount of opinion, but I think that Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are closest to what you describe. These are issued by the US Treasury like a treasury bond, but the rate is adjusted for inflation. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_tips_glance.htm I see your comment about taxes. TIPS are exempt from state and local taxes, but they are subject to federal tax on the income and on the growth of the principal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cd7ac20e75991e9a6c0b13fa77b122d",
"text": "Inflation can be held at whatever level the international fiat banking system desires up until it hits the tipping point. Commodities are still high over a 3 year tracking (my uncle and cousin run a family farm of 1000 acres and they are in heaven this year with prices of beef, corn, and soy so high), and luxury goods are deflating because no one is buying them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e5884c8989625ef35817b5a4e915cb8",
"text": "I don’t disagree that housing prices are important and vital to the economy, but I think they are a separate issue to inflation, requires a different set of tools to deal with, and has completely different outcomes from policies. First and foremost, they are almost the only item purchased that can be resold at a higher value. So even though house prices may have risen 1000%, who ever had bought a house exits with a 1000% increase in equity. How would account for that when calculating inflation?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03a4b24c6aa6c38203ae620e6cd57088",
"text": "Good points. I'd like to add some more: 6. Automation is deflationary 7. Low birth rate is deflationary 8. Declining educational level is deflationary 9. Migration of uneducated people is deflationary 10. Declining EROI is deflationary The printing press only inflates the valuation of assets, causing the inequality to rise. For people who do not have assets, life becomes more and more unaffordable. Redistribution of wealth cannot solve this problem, as the financial markets require a growing money base. Otherwise, Hyperinflation would be an inevitable consequence. Economic decline is merciless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4e87a814da9242f7855873f3fdeff89",
"text": "I believe there are two ways new money is created: My favorite description of this (money creation) comes from Chris Martenson: the video is here on Youtube. And yes, I believe both can create inflation. In fact this is what happened in the US between 2004 and 2007: increasing loans to households to buy houses created an inflation of home prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d9444595e7e45564762ff58a6c29bc5",
"text": "\"While this figure is a giant flashing-red beacon of inflation, it should be noted that this has been happening during a period of unprecedented writedowns and deleveraging of \"\"hypothetical\"\" assets -- assets that exist on paper only. The result, given the way QE funds have been injected into the market (eg TAF), is that people who *should've* lost money get to tread water, and the inflation is not apparent in the rest of the economy (unless you are actually aware of the severe repercussions which should've happened but didn't). Also, and separately, I'm not so sure another round of QE is coming.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e437a2c62972a44657f449075e12786",
"text": "\"Debt is nominal, which means when inflation happens, the value of the money owed goes down. This is great for the borrower and bad for the lender. \"\"Investing\"\" can mean a lot of different things. Frequently it is used to describe buying common stock, which is an ownership claim on a company. A company is not a nominally fixed asset, by which I mean if there was a bunch of inflation and nothing else happened (i.e., the inflation was not the cause or result of some other economic change) then the nominal value of the company will go up along with the prices of other things. Based on the above, I'd say you are incorrect to treat debt and investment returns the same way with respect to inflation. When we say equity returns 9%, we mean it returns a real 7% plus 2% inflation or whatever. If the rate of inflation increased to 10% and nothing else happened in the economy, the same equity would be expected to return 17%. In fact, the company's (nominally fixed) debts would be worth less, increasing the real value of the company at the expense of their debt-holders. On the other hand, if we entered a period of high inflation, your debt liability would go way down and you would have benefited greatly from borrowing and investing at the same time. If you are expecting inflation in the abstract sense, then borrowing and investing in common stock is a great idea. Inflation is frequently the result (or cause) of a period of economic trouble, so please be aware that the above makes sense if we treat inflation as the only thing that changed. If inflation came about because OPEC makes oil crazy expensive, millennials just stop working, all of our factories got bombed to hades, or trade wars have shut down international commerce, then the value of stocks would most definitely be affected. In that case it's not really \"\"inflation\"\" that affected the stock returns, though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb4539d14a460c05bbedaebb6a7be667",
"text": "Trying to engage in arbitrage with the metal in nickels (which was actually worth more than a nickel already, last I checked) is cute but illegal, and would be more effective at an industrial scale anyway (I don't think you could make it cost-effective at an individual level). There are more effective inflation hedges than nickels and booze. Some of them even earn you interest. You could at least consider a more traditional commodities play - it's certainly a popular strategy these days. A lot of people shoot for gold, as it's a traditional hedge in a crisis, but there are concerns that particular market is overheated, so you might consider alternatives to that. Normal equities (i.e. the stock market) usually work out okay in an inflationary environment, and can earn you a return as they're doing so.... and it's not like commodities aren't volatile and subject to the whims of the world economy too. TIPs (inflation-indexed Treasury bonds) are another option with less risk, but also a weaker return (and still have interest rate risks involved, since those aren't directly tied to inflation either).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b0c4f9b96ade9e42083f413ef5016f0",
"text": "You can illustrate why expense ratio fees are in the numerator with an extreme example: Let's say you have $100 in a mutual fund, their expense ratio is 50%, your nominal return is 900% and inflation is 900%. Thus, without the expense, your investment would give you $100 in present value (because your return and inflation are identical), and $1000 in future value. So with the expense ratio of 50% and no change in present value, you can reason that you would expect the expense ratio will eat half the present value. If you apply your equation and include expenses in the numerator, you end up with: ((100 - 100(.50))*(1+9))/(1+9) = $50 present value as you would expect If you apply the manager's assumption that fees are applied external to inflation, then you end up with: (100 * (1 + 9))/(1+9) - (100 * (1+9) * .50) = $-400 present value. With this example you can see applying the fees externally acts as though they are charging you the fees on future returns today. *Edit: It's probably not worth fighting with someone senior to you over, as inflation rates are noisy estimates to begin with and the difference between these is typically not material to the decision being made; but pissing off someone senior by showing them their math is off will probably have a material impact on you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4720336bb16326ec94beea5f69f2385",
"text": "That's completely false. If you buy a house and live in it for 30 years, it should rise about 2-3% with inflation (neglecting any bubbles), then when you sell it, it may be worth 75 to 100% more than you paid for it. But if you sell it for 50-60% more, you didn't actually make any money (due to inflation), you lost money, but are still expected to pay capital gains on that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fccca8cc84cb308a87dab7f5bd069532
|
What does “Net Depreciation in Fair Value” mean on a financial report?
|
[
{
"docid": "3ef191bd6b7281c763458553dff54681",
"text": "First, the annual report is just that, a snapshot that shows value at the beginning and end of the period. Beginning = Aug 08 = $105B End = Aug 09 = $89B Newsletter date May 10 = $96B Odd they chose end of August as it's not even a calendar quarter end. The $16B was market loss during that period. Nearly half of that seemed to be recovered by the time this newsletter came out. The balance sheet also has to show deposits and payments made to existing retirees. I haven't looked at the S&P numbers for those dates, but my gut says this is right. The market tanked and the plan was down, but not too bad. Protect? The PBGC guarantees pensions up to a certain limit. I believe that in general, teachers are below the limit and are not at risk of a reduced benefit. You do need to check that your plan is covered. If not, I believe the state would take over directly. I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8f20d184f04a39ab58bee86c211d7adc",
"text": "\"To answer your question briefly: net income is affected by many things inside and outside of management control, and must be supplemented by other elements to gain a clear picture of a company's health. To answer your question in-depth, we must look at the history of financial reporting: Initially, accounting was primarily cash-based. That is, a business records a sale when a customer pays them cash, and records expenses when cash goes out the door. This was not a perfectly accurate system, as cashflow might be quite erratic even if sales are stable (collection times may differ, etc.). To combat problems with cash-based accounting, financial reporting moved to an accrual-based system. An accrual is the recording of an item before it has fully completed in a cash transaction. For example, when you ship goods to a customer and they owe you money, you record the revenue - then you record the future collection of cash as a balance sheet item, rather than an income statement item. Another example: if your landlord charges you rent on December 31st for the past year, then in each month leading up to December, you accrue the expense on the income statement, even though you haven't paid the landlord yet. Accrual-based accounting leaves room for accounting manipulation. Enron is a prime example; among other things, they were accruing revenue for sales that had not occurred. This 'accelerated' their income, by having it recorded years before cash was ever collectible. There are specific guidelines that restrict doing things like this, but management will still attempt to accelerate net income as much as possible under accounting guidelines. Public companies have their financial statements audited by unrelated accounting firms - theoretically, they exist to catch material misstatements in the financial statements. Finally, some items impacting profit do not show up in net income - they show up in \"\"Other Comprehensive Income\"\" (OCI). OCI is meant to show items that occurred in the year, but were outside of management control. For example, changes in the value of foreign subsidiaries, due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Or changes in the value of company pension plan, which are impacted by the stock market. However, while OCI is meant to pick up all non-management-caused items, it is a grey area and may not be 100% representative of this idea. So in theory, net income is meant to represent items within management control. However, given the grey area in accounting interpretation, net income may be 'accelerated', and it also may include some items that occurred by some 'random business fluke' outside of company control. Finally, consider that financial statements are prepared months after the last year-end. So a company may show great profit for 2015 when statements come out in March, but perhaps Jan-March results are terrible. In conclusion, net income is an attempt at giving what you want: an accurate representation of the health of a company in terms of what is under management control. However it may be inaccurate due to various factors, from malfeasance to incompetence. That's why other financial measures exist - as another way to answer the same question about a company's health, to see if those answers agree. ex: Say net income is $10M this year, but was only $6M last year - great, it went up by $4M! But now assume that Accounts Receivable shows $7M owed to the company at Dec 31, when last year there was only $1M owed to the company. That might imply that there are problems collecting on that additional revenue (perhaps revenue was recorded prematurely, or perhaps they sold to customers who went bankrupt). Unfortunately there is no single number that you can use to see the whole company - different metrics must be used in conjunction to get a clear picture.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "145d8cf762769c52f00716bde4c9129a",
"text": "There is a positive not being mentioned above: the depreciation vs your regular earned income. Disclaimer: I am not a tax attorney or an accountant, nor do I play one on the internet. I am however a landlord. With that important caveat out of the way: Rental properties (and improvements to them) depreciate in value on a well-defined schedule. You can claim that depreciation as a phantom loss to lower the amount of your taxable regular income. If you make a substantial amount of the latter, it can be a huge boon in the first few years you own the property. You can claim the depreciation as if the property were new. So take the advice of a random stranger on the internet to your accountant/attorney and see how much it helps you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c23a61f572194b420b110c7a2af7c62",
"text": "\"This is called \"\"change\"\" or \"\"movement\"\" - the change (in points or percentage) from the last closing value. You can read more about the ticker tape on Investopedia, the format you're referring to comes from there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b573ff1763f664a030871b1be7801af5",
"text": "Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's. Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4380d3bed0e99990fb75de7a61c45f9",
"text": "You can think of a free cash flow as dividends from operations. FCF = cash from operations - investment in operations. The present value of these cash flows into the future is the value of the firm (DCF is very much like the dividend discount model). Now why does a DCF produce enterprise value and not equity value? Because a DCF values the firm's operating assets. To find the equity value, you use the accounting relation: assets = liabilities + equity (or in financial terms net operating assets = net financial obligations + common stockholders equity). This means you take away net debt from the value produced by the DCF to find equity. Now all your excess cash is netted off against your financial obligations (debt) to find the net debt. Cash used for day to day operations is an operating asset and should be treated as such, operating cash should not deducted from value of assets when finding the value of equity. At least that's what they're teaching at university now (i'm a uni student who's just finished my business valuation subject).",
"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": "8f5439eccba9927dbad2c3edb01e31dd",
"text": "Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b1878d675da2b5a540ade3487ed40d6",
"text": "In the second example you are giving up future free cash flows in exchange for a capital gain on the original investment. With that respect the money you will not gain will be the difference of the future cash flows ( net of related costs) minus the net gain on the panel you have sold. The financial result can be considered as the opposite of a sunk cost, that is a cost you have already incurred ( and cannot be recovered) vs net future gains you are giving up. In more sophisticated financial terms we are talking about the benefit-cost ratio: ( from Investopedia)",
"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": "1169f9db654b7e89de8d8bc0a26b24e1",
"text": "The preparation for starting up of the company has lasted already more than 2 years. Let's say the company starts officially in January next year. So, in January 2014... 8 million USD is invested to purchase the equipments and the company will start selling their prdocuts right away. Imagine the company will be selling the same amount of products each year at the same price for 5 years. After 5 years it will sell the equipments for 6 million USD and cease to exist. The depreciation of equipments is divided into those 5 years. So, each year the depreciation of equipments is 400.000 USD. In despite of this, the company will make 500.000 USD per year as a profit before tax. So, the equipments are bought in Januardy 2014 (first month of the existence of the company) and sold in December 2018 (last month of the existence of the company). This is the NPV that I calculated. Is it correct?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b107f0cef24f9d51830447421b8b2582",
"text": "This answer fills in some of the details you are unsure about, since I'm further along than you. I bought the ESPP shares in 2012. I didn't sell immediately, but in 2015, so I qualify for the long-term capital gains rate. Here's how it was reported: The 15% discount was reported on a W2 as it was also mentioned twice in the info box (not all of my W2's come with one of these) but also This showed the sale trade, with my cost basis as the discounted price of $5000. And for interests sake, I also got the following in 2012: WARNING! This means that just going ahead and entering the numbers means you will be taxed twice! once as income and once as capital gains. I only noticed this was happening because I no longer worked for the company, so this W2 only had this one item on it. This is another example of the US tax system baffling me with its blend of obsessive compulsive need for documentation coupled with inexplicably missing information that's critical to sensible accounting. The 1099 documents must (says the IRS since 2015) show the basis value as the award price (your discounted price). So reading the form 8949: Note: If you checked Box D above but the basis reported to the IRS was incorrect, enter in column (e) the basis as reported to the IRS, and enter an adjustment in column (g) to correct the basis. We discover the number is incorrect and must adjust. The actual value you need to adjust it by may be reported on your 1099, but also may not (I have examples of both). I calculated the required adjustment by looking at the W2, as detailed above. I gleaned this information from the following documents provided by my stock management company (you should the tax resources section of your provider):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f766087d13ac15a104961a481536a7af",
"text": "Does the friend fix your electrical wiring and the engine of your car? If you need a professional advice - ask a professional. In this case - an accountant (not necessarily a CPA, but at least an experienced bookkeeper). Financial Statements (official documents, that is) must be signed by a public accountant (CPA in the US) or the principle (you). I wouldn't take chances and would definitely have an accountant do that. You need to consider the asset useful life, and the depreciation. The fact that you use it for non-business purposes may be recorded in various ways. One that comes to mind is accounting as a supplement for depreciation: You depreciate the percentage that is used for business, and record as a distribution to owner the rest (which is accounting for the personal use). This way it would also match the tax reporting (in the US, at least). Bottom line: if you're preparing an official financial statement (that you're going to submit to anyone other than yourself) - get a professional advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45fed3fdfefc389c5e6a939ea75b0d38",
"text": "83(b) election requires you to pay the current taxes on the discount value. If the discount value is 0 - the taxes are also 0. Question arises - why would someone pay FMV for restricted stocks? That doesn't make sense. I would argue, as a devil's advocate, that the FMV is not really fair market value, since the restriction must have reduced the price you were willing to pay for the stocks. Otherwise why would you buy the stocks at full price - with strings attached that could easily cost you the whole amount you paid?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "babde865bb9d96b55faa268417c37cb3",
"text": "It's a way to help normalize the meaning of the earnings report. Some companies like Google have a small number of publicly traded shares (322 Million). Others like Microsoft have much larger numbers of shares (8.3 Billion). The meaning depends on the stock. If it's a utility company that doesn't really grow, you don't want to see lots of changes -- the earnings per share should be stable. If it's a growth company, earnings should be growing quickly, and flat growth means that the stock is probably going down, especially if slow growth wasn't expected.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1adf6bf3b115f70cb8d77a0be6e30f97",
"text": "\"Yes - this is exactly what it means. No losses (negative earnings). With today's accounting methods, you might want to determine whether you view earnings including or excluding extraordinary items. For example, a company might take a once-off charge to its earnings when revising the value of a major asset. This would show in the \"\"including\"\" but not in the \"\"excluding\"\" figure. The book actually has a nice discussion in Chapter 12 \"\"Things to Consider About Per-Share Earnings\"\" which considers several additional variables to consider here too. Note that this earnings metric is different from \"\"Stock Selection for the Defensive Investor\"\" which requires 10 years. PS - My edition (4th edition hardback) doesn't have 386 pages so your reference isn't correct for that edition. I found it on page 209 in Chapter 15 \"\"Stock Selection for the Enterprising Investor\"\".\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cee3cf7838a0dd839073a115cee4c0ff
|
looking for research tool to plug in and evaluate theoretical historical returns
|
[
{
"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": "835aea544af9ee19eb114bf793e8f425",
"text": "\"I keep spreadsheets that verify each $ distribution versus the rate times number of shares owned. For mutual funds, I would use Yahoo's historical data, but sometimes shows up late (a few days, a week?) and it isn't always quite accurate enough. A while back I discovered that MSN had excellent data when using their market price chart with dividends \"\"turned on,\"\" HOWEVER very recently they have revamped their site and the trusty URLs I have previously used no longer work AND after considerable browsing, I can no longer find this level of detail anywhere on their site !=( Happily, the note above led me to the Google business site, and it looks like I am \"\"back in business\"\"... THANKS!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8874c2e14077c87317b65163a01e3d35",
"text": "\"The graphing tools within Yahoo offer a decent level of adjustment. You can easily choose start and end years, and 2 or more symbols to compare. I caution you. From Jan 1980 through Dec 2011, the S&P would have grown $1 to $29.02, (See Moneychimp) but, the index went up from 107.94 to 1257.60, growing a dollar to only $11.65. The index, and therefore the charts, do not include dividends. So long term analysis will yield false results if this isn't accounted for. EDIT - From the type of question this is, I'd suggest you might be interested in a book titled \"\"Stock Market Logic.\"\" If memory serves me, it offered up patterns like you suggest, seasonal, relations to Presidential cycle, etc. I don't judge these approaches, I just recall this book exists from seeing it about 20 years back.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "852794d0d9b1643cd8e965fea5278006",
"text": "\"Usually you gotta build those tools for yourself :P, you can usually build em in excel as its fairly easy and sort to see what is the most profitable, you can code most of the heavy lifting in excel, monte carlo/\"\"complex\"\" methods you probably won't even need... I'm a strong proponent of R however what you're doing is not that complex.... edit: I accidently a word.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "081512f0aaafbef6ec324b5e271c4821",
"text": "\"Check out Professor Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . Tons of good stuff there to get you started. If you want more depth, he's written what is widely considered the bible on the subject of valuation: \"\"Investment Valuation\"\". DCF is very well suited to stock analysis. One doesn't need to know, or forecast the future stock price to use it. In fact, it's the opposite. Business fundamentals are forecasted to estimate the sum total of future cash flows from the company, discounted back to the present. Divide that by shares outstanding, and you have the value of the stock. The key is to remember that DCF calculations are very sensitive to inputs. Be conservative in your estimates of future revenue growth, earnings margins, and capital investment. I usually develop three forecasts: pessimistic, neutral, optimistic. This delivers a range of value instead of a false-precision single number. This may seem odd: I find the DCF invaluable, but for the process, not so much the result. The input sensitivity requires careful work, and while a range of value is useful, the real benefit comes from being required to answer the questions to build the forecast. It provides a framework to analyze a business. You're just trying to properly fill in the boxes, estimate the unguessable. To do so, you pore through the financials. Skimming, reading with a purpose. In the end you come away with a fairly deep understanding of the business, how they make money, why they'll continue to make money, etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5685b1ded2c93079cd5e6b11fdc85535",
"text": "I found that an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface. Its called My Personal Index. It has allowed me to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include: Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns. (I finally got off my duff and did something about it)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0905df12631772350b672e32f143dc23",
"text": "Here are a few things I've already done, and others reading this for their own use may want to try. It is very easy to find a pattern in any set of data. It is difficult to find a pattern that holds true in different data pulled from the same population. Using similar logic, don't look for a pattern in the data from the entire population. If you do, you won't have anything to test it against. If you don't have anything to test it against, it is difficult to tell the difference between a pattern that has a cause (and will likely continue) and a pattern that comes from random noise (which has no reason to continue). If you lose money in bad years, that's okay. Just make sure that the gains in good years are collectively greater than the losses in bad years. If you put $10 in and lose 50%, you then need a 100% gain just to get back up to $10. A Black Swan event (popularized by Nassim Taleb, if memory serves) is something that is unpredictable but will almost certainly happen at some point. For example, a significant natural disaster will almost certainly impact the United States (or any other large country) in the next year or two. However, at the moment we have very little idea what that disaster will be or where it will hit. By the same token, there will be Black Swan events in the financial market. I do not know what they will be or when they will happen, but I do know that they will happen. When building a system, make sure that it can survive those Black Swan events (stay above the death line, for any fellow Jim Collins fans). Recreate your work from scratch. Going through your work again will make you reevaluate your initial assumptions in the context of the final system. If you can recreate it with a different medium (i.e. paper and pen instead of a computer), this will also help you catch mistakes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50fbda863f078d02e1be7577f198d04",
"text": "http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baeda48ad38b88a95a6cbfd626419096",
"text": "I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19626720f85dcf1e74d4b90ea17a917e",
"text": "Another possibly more flexible option is Yahoo finance here is an example for the dow.. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=9&b=1&c=1928&d=3&e=10&f=2012&g=d&z=66&y=0 Some of the individual stocks you can dl directly to a spreadsheet (not sure why this isn't offer for indexs but copy and paste should work). http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=ACTC.OB+Historical+Prices",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29659306b04dc3e5b307209bc5b7310d",
"text": "Personally, I think this one is best. RAROC (risk-adjusted return on capital) puts things in perspective for excess returns when considering risk-contribution. It does have its flaws, e.g. the quality of the VaR can be manipulated or simply incorrectly measured. But as in any model, it's GIGO (garbage-in garbage-out).",
"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": "0e4dd0800c43b069a301a33451519f63",
"text": "\"I'd start with a Google search for \"\"best backtesting tools.\"\" Does your online brokerage offer anything? You already understand that the data is the important part. The good stuff isn't free. But yeah, if you have some money to spend you can get more than enough data to completely overwhelm you. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77910cb1a35f144cf084c07e12dd9ba9",
"text": "I am mostly interested in day to day records, and would like the data to contain information such as dividend payouts, and other parameters commonly available, such as on : http://finviz.com/screener.ashx ... but the kind of queries you can do is limited. For instance you can only go back two years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39e680ba097f0ffc975fb39a29e5dcd0",
"text": "Check the answers to this Stackoverflow question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/754593/source-of-historical-stock-data a number of potential sources are listed",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10233a68f38891dfe9dd64590cb455f3",
"text": "\"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \"\"Net Investment Tax\"\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1598f178590b9fc10ef554202c5e024a
|
Where do short-term traders look for the earliest stock related news?
|
[
{
"docid": "03e9557aeedc4a1650f7eba55a9cf3b6",
"text": "I work for a fund management company and we get our news through two different service providers Bloomberg and Thomson One. They don't actually source the news though they just feed news from other providers Professional solutions (costs ranging from $300-1500+ USD/month/user) Bloomberg is available as a windows install or via Bloomberg Anywhere which offers bimometric access via browser. Bloomberg is superb and their customer support is excellent but they aren't cheap. If you're looking for a free amateur solution for stock news I'd take a look at There are dozens of other tools people can use for day trading that usually provide news and real time prices at a cost but I don't have any direct experience with them",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d1f1268fe00eb1e8f19c139ad9d8d02",
"text": "There's a whole industry devoted to this. Professionals use Bloomberg terminals. High Frequency Traders have computers read news feeds for them. Amateurs use trading consoles (like Thinkorswim) to get headlines quickly on stocks.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fc1bf4de61c4935ba16ddaa14ac96f2f",
"text": "according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e922f76f4b55236cf0889571e37fab4d",
"text": "It is simply an average of what each analyst covering that stock are recommending, and since they usually only recommend Hold or Buy (rarely Sell), the value will float between Hold and Buy. Not very useful IMHO.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0c6131c929ff4cb984b99aff8f67405",
"text": "Market Watch has an IPO calender with details of upcoming IPOs that should provide most of the information you need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77ecf212f4efc907eee18d547f3912ca",
"text": "No career advice or homework help (unless your homework is some kind of big project and you need an explanation on a concept). I want to see financial news, legislation concerning the markets and regulation, self posts about financial concepts, opinion articles about finance from reputable sources, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b81c09b50251d6d8eced07aaaa835e6e",
"text": "Well, kind of XD. I usually just look through Business Week for the ADRs that are on the OTC market. I don't do anything major, but why I love them is that they have a greater reach than just ADRs on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Like for instance, if I wanted to own Thai or European stocks, many of the larger, more reputable firms are listed on the OTC market. Having said that, most other sites don't have earnings reports laid out for you. Business Week does. The only fancy thing I am interested in are options and options on futures, and Bar Chart is good for the latter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b528f29ebaead09e2665fc7058ec1a55",
"text": "Institute of Supply Management, specifically their Report on Business. Good forward looking indicator. As far as the weekly report, I'd probably read it, maybe even contribute, but I more of a lurker on this sub. I saw your question and have had some similar experiences so I thought I could help you out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dad87928431875301308fad68c7ae0c",
"text": "\"Indexes are down during the summer time, and I don't think it has something to do with specific stocks. If you look at the index history you'll see that there's a price drop during the summer time. Google \"\"Sell in May and go away\"\". The BP was cheap at the time for a very particular reason. As another example of a similar speculation you can look at Citibank, which was less than $1 at its lowest, and within less than a year went to over $4 ( more than 400%). But, when it was less than $1 - it was very likely for C to go bankrupt, and it required a certain amount of willingness to loose to invest in it. Looking back, as with BP, it paid off well. But - that is looking back. So to address your question - there's no place where people tell you what will go up, because people who know (or think they know) will invest themselves, or buy lottery tickets. There's research, analysts, and \"\"frinds' suggestions\"\" which sometimes pay off (as in your example with BP), and sometimes don't. How much of it is noise - I personally don't think I can tell, until I can look back and say \"\"Damn, that dude was right about shorts on Google, it did go down 90% in 2012!\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6614c80a1bfd3d9994c53dd2e02b2ba",
"text": "Try Google Finance Screener ; you will be able to filter for NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7883e2d280b6f58e8966be6b1ae7cdc3",
"text": "No matter how a company releases relevant information about their business, SOMEBODY will be the first to see it. I mean, of all the people looking, someone has to be the first. I presume that professional stock brokers have their eyes on these things closely and know exactly who publishes where and when to expect new information. In real life, many brokers are going to be seeing this information within seconds of each other. I suppose if one sees it half a second before everybody else, knows what he's looking for and has already decided what he's going to do based on this information, he might get a buy or sell order in before anybody else. Odds are that if you're not a professional broker, you don't know when to expect new information to be posted, and you probably have a job or a family or like to eat and sleep now and then, so you can't be watching somebody's web site constantly, so you'll be lagging hours or days behind the full-time professionals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b5e3ad5eedadb699deaf191b14424aa",
"text": "\"I believe you are looking for price forecasts from analysts. Yahoo provides info in the analyst opinions section: here is an example for Apple the price targets are located in the \"\"Price Target Summary\"\" section.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bee5a63f15bde0552214d71f7f7654fb",
"text": "If you are looking to analyze stocks and don't need the other features provided by Bloomberg and Reuters (e.g. derivatives and FX), you could also look at WorldCap, which is a mobile solution to analyze global stocks, at FactSet and S&P CapitalIQ. Please note that I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffb51ec6e667a0e05d682b5d8b706b67",
"text": "I am very familiar with the Bloomberg terminal service and agree that their info on securities & markets, especially fixed income, is unparalleled. However, their news and editorial departments espouse the viewpoints of Michael Bloomberg such as being permabullish in the face of data, pro gun control, pro immigration (legal+illegal), pro Israel, and pro Sunni monarchies (Saudi et al).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2379e2f1e6f178d08404ad68f7796fef",
"text": "http://www.moneysupermarket.com/shares/CompareSharesForm.asp lists many. I found the Interactive Investor website to be excruciatingly bad. I switched to TD Waterhouse and found the website good but the telephone service a bit abrupt. I often use the data presented on SelfTrade but don't have an account there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5133e8a0da48d7a0a7bccf8988781a6a",
"text": "Well, that is why I am asking questions, and seeing if there is any catch. I want to read up before I actually trade. Before I trades stocks I read for like 2 years, learning as much as I could. I am not about to jump in, but it is something I would like to trade eventually. I know I need to do my due diligence on it. The reason I came here was to get information on the topic before I decided on anything, including books and websites.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b00300f2a333c26c62eefd7a6367917",
"text": "When you look at the charts in Google Finance, they put the news on the right hand side. The time stamp for each news item is indicated with a letter in the chart. This often shows what news the market is reacting to. In your example: Clicking on the letter F leads to this Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/usa-housing-s-idUSWAT01486120110204",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
65fa29d06172724da570f24d4f0fa825
|
Is Weiss Research, Inc. a legitimate financial research company?
|
[
{
"docid": "fc7f42649f3f23fb3fac410b56aced21",
"text": "\"This company was a reputable rating agency for many years. See Weiss Research website, ratings section for a very different perspective on Martin Weiss's work than the websites with which he is now associated. I checked both links provided, and agree with the questioner in every way: These appear to be highly questionable investment research websites. I use such strong terms based on the fact that the website actually uses the distasteful pop-up ploy, \"\"Are you SURE you want to leave this site?\"\" Clearly, something changed between what Weiss Ratings was in the past (per company history since 1971) and what Martin Weiss is doing now. Larry Edelson seems to have been associated exclusively with questionable websites and high pressure investment advice since 2007. From 1996 through the present, he worked as either an employee or contractor of Weiss Research. Let's answer each of your questions. On June 22, 2006, the Commission instituted settled administrative proceedings against Weiss Research, Inc., Martin Weiss, and Lawrence Edelson (collectively, “Respondents”) for violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 in connection with their operation of an unregistered investment adviser and the production and distribution of materially false and misleading marketing materials. Full details about Weiss Ratings operations, including its history from 1996 through 2001, when it operated in compliance with securities laws, then from 2001 through 2005, which was when the SEC filed charges for regulatory violations, are available from the June 2006 U.S. SEC court documents PDF. Finally, this quantitative assessment, \"\"Safe With Martin Weiss? (December 2010) by CXO Advisory (providers of \"\"objective research and reviews to aid investing decisions\"\") for its readers concluded the following: In summary, the performance of Martin Weiss’ premium services in aggregate over the past year is unimpressive. The study methodology was good, but I recommend reading the article (I posted the URL) to fully understand what caveats and assumptions were done to reach that conclusion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7327c36a4ef5c342503f871de7ebbf99",
"text": "Weiss Ratings is an independent company providing data and analysis for the bank and insurance industries. We’ve published the Weiss Financial Strength Ratings for banking institutions and insurance companies since 1989 and continue to use the methodology praised by the GAO back in 1994. Weiss Ratings has consistently graded failed institutions in the lowest Weiss Rating tier at the time of failure. We invite you to look at the Weiss Ratings' track record.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3792c3a2741f0f3f60b41fecae7b073",
"text": "It is a scam organization praying on fear of the simple minded. The facts Edelson presents are not accurate - http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/ia-2525.pdf",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ffb51ec6e667a0e05d682b5d8b706b67",
"text": "I am very familiar with the Bloomberg terminal service and agree that their info on securities & markets, especially fixed income, is unparalleled. However, their news and editorial departments espouse the viewpoints of Michael Bloomberg such as being permabullish in the face of data, pro gun control, pro immigration (legal+illegal), pro Israel, and pro Sunni monarchies (Saudi et al).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "587eb9e7541a4f51164b1e072cf2a0b8",
"text": "I recall at the time that people on investment boards were circulating lists of companies audited by AA, as a - quite reliable - indication that they were fraudulent. I have had a lot of dealings with their offshoot AA Consulting, now known as Accenture. These dealings have not, to put it mildly, given me any reason to think that AA's culture was very ethical. And if you cannot trust an auditor, they are worthless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4d030a54052cb3d51590f518fd22cdc",
"text": "What you were told isn't an absolute truth, so trying to counter something fundamentally flawed won't get you anywhere. For example: chinese midcap equities are up 20% this year, even from their high of 100%. While the BSE Sensex in India is down several percentage points on the year. Your portfolio would have lost money this year taking advice from your peers. The fluctuation in the rupees and remnibi would not have changed this fact. What you are asking is a pretty common area of research, as in several people will write their dissertation on the exact same topic every year, and you should be able to find various analysis and theories on the subject. But the macroeconomic landscape changes, a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1479bfc3f23662f17bdf12c0074e13f8",
"text": "\"I like Muro questions! No, I don't think they do. Because for me, as a personal finance investor type just trying to save for retirement, they mean nothing. If I cannot tell what the basic business model of a company is, and how that business model is profitable and makes money, then that is a \"\"no buy\"\" for me. If I do understand it, they I can do some more looking into the stock and company and see if I want to purchase. I buy index funds that are indexes of industries and companies I can understand. I let a fund manager worry about the details, but I get myself in the right ballpark and I use a simple logic test to get there, not the word of a rating agency. If belong in the system as a whole, I could not really say. I could not possibly do the level of accounting research and other investigation that rating agencies do, so even if the business model is sound I might lose an investment because the company is not an ethical one. Again, that is the job of my fund manager to determine. Furthermore and I mitigate that risk by buying indexes instead of individual stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "812a21841968b8016fe9dddda33b9b22",
"text": "Is there one out there that doesn't suffer from massive survivorship bias? Most that I've looked at gather their data from discretionary reporting from the manager themselves, and many stop reporting after bad months when they aren't going to be raising capital anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47d2401e8c9dcd835a24ea517a73bda6",
"text": "I've seen this tool. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can just get a list of all the companies. For example, you can get up to 100 results at a time, if I just search latest filings for 10-K. This isn't really an efficient way to go about what I want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "364c5bdcc35696cb53ff746d43d1bfbe",
"text": "> Wait, so you can travel to see clients but can't travel to visit companies/do research? Don't clients respect alpha over face time? Sounds like absolutely typical financial company behavior. Especially with the research showing that active management (i.e., that alpha you mention) is only a product of luck anyways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8c17841933b6b14b58b1d4691dbda53",
"text": "\"Yes, I did. I won't deny it. But, as I said in my original post - \"\"I don't know much about this subject [finances]\"\". Well, that's why I came here to ask a question. I don't know what \"\"trusted\"\" sources are in this field - it's not as if there are real scientific journals in this field as in biology (my profession). So... is this a problem in your view?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96e8cc6c3a6bfb65d7beed0e346de265",
"text": "\"Yes ROI is legitimate, in my opinion. My old boss used to say 'change the paradigm' all the time though, and only used it when someone came to him with a problem and he didn't want to deal with it. \"\"Bob, we have a problem with XYZ\"\" \"\"No no no, change the paradigm. This is an opportunity for you to shine. Go get em!\"\" Maybe my experience with a horrible, horrible boss that abused a lot of these phrases and thought he was Jack Welch's long lost son just made me bitter any time I see marketing bullshit. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d4fd0fd56a1b7feca90b6b112f98d98",
"text": "Thanks for the tip, I hope I don't get banned -- I got approval from the moderators before posting here! The reason we're posting here and not just in SurveyResearch is because (a) we think this may be fun/interesting to users on this board, and we're happy to share the results, and (b) we specifically need participants who have some interest or experience in finance or investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c16ef1a480e16041e398776b006863fc",
"text": "So the MS analyst wasn't acting independently of MS's role as underwriter when he revised his earnings estimates? MS is a big place. I guess I just assumed that someone could be on one end saying something, with other parts of the company blissfully unaware. All without a conspiracy to commit fraud. Good to know. Perhaps you can point - for those of us ignorant in finance - to the rules or laws that were broken here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2e93a7327f67ea293c9ba6375203b36",
"text": "\"Ok, I stand corrected. Still... those papers are quite away from my field of expertise and I don't want to lose a lot of time learning all the financial lingo. I asked an easy question: \"\"Is this [the everything bubble] a thing or not?\"\" It seems that it's not, but I still wanted to know more about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c08b825fd49af4408560809e33a42a6",
"text": "\"I know I replied in another section of this tread as well, but are you looking at MS/Smith Barney, trowe advisory planning, or directly within their mutual fund equity research? The reason I ask is because often there is a misunderstanding between Financial Advisory (FA) work and working directly within a fund doing equity research (Equity Analyst). People often think FA's do a lot of research, and they do, but you'll effectively blackball yourself from **ever** entering research because there's a \"\"sales-person\"\" stigma attached to being an FA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b00994a3199a212843647560130837fa",
"text": "Expecting accurate accounting in a war-zone is unrealistic. Money is used to buy loyality that would be lost if it got out that they had accepted infidel invader's money. Secrets are a characteristic of all wars. Expecting accurate accounting in a wallstreet investment firm is completely reasonable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b4ed0e1efb37c9bb688d7f1e3dbac9d",
"text": "I'm really sorry, but what do you mean by ISM? I googled it but found nothing.. Thanks! Anyway, the WF product is really good indeed. Maybe we (r/finance) could start a weekly report too, quoting major reports like this one, and make some comments/analysis. That could be interesting don't you think? It would take quite some time but I think this sub lacks something like this.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
242fff3b3e67645c81c6cda36ebb9fea
|
Impact of Extreme Situations such as WW2 on “legendary” Investors' Returns?
|
[
{
"docid": "8630e7c793b2a9d47c5204c2e1ab0599",
"text": "\"Possibly the best answer to why America became globally dominant after WW2 was written by a FRENCHMAN, Jean-Jacque Sergen-Schreiber, Le Defi American (The American Challenge). Probably the only legendary investor of the proper age to benefit from WW2 was John Templeton, who borrowed $10,000 before the war, and ended up with $40,000 afterward (both worth about ten times more in today's money). His story, and that of others, can be found in John Train's, \"\"The Money Masters.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f70a899fec01d9205d64124e0970dc19",
"text": "\"In the words of David Einhorn, Flash Boys was \"\"based on a true story.\"\" The way Lewis tells the story is extremely misleading, and you seem to have been suckered in. HFT has reduced spreads to a small fraction of what they were 20 years ago, they are awesome for average people, who are retail traders. Lewis uses \"\"ordinary investors\"\" to mean guys like Einhorn, who do suffer from HFT because they make it hard to buy large blocks of stock without moving the price. But it is not a God-given right to buy stock without moving the price against yourself, and guys like Einhorn now understand how to trade given the current market structure.\"",
"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": "b3867acb1c21ff31986b19e85a766421",
"text": "While JB King says some useful things, I think there is another fundamental reason why stock markets go down after disasters, either natural or man-made. There is a real impact on the markets - in the case of something like 9/11 due to closed airport, higher security costs, closer inspections on trade goods, tighter restrictions on visas, real payments for the rebuilding of destroyed buildings and insurance payouts for killed people, and eventually the cost of a war. But almost as important is the uncertainty and risk. Nobody knew what was going to happen in the days and weeks after an attack like that. Is there going to be another one a week later, or every week for the next year? Will air travel become essentially impractical? Will international trade be severely restricted? All those would have a huge, massive effect on the economy. You may argue that those things are very unlikely, even after something like 9/11. But even a small increase in the likelihood of a catastrophic economic crash is enough to start people selling. There is another thing that drives the market down. Even if most people are sure that there won't be a catastrophic economic crash, they know that other people think there might be and so will sell. That will drive the market down. If they know the market is going down, then sensible traders will start to sell, even if they think there is zero risk of a crash. This makes the effect worse. Eventually prices will drop so far that the people who don't think there is a crash will start to buy, so they can make a profit on the recovery. But that usually doesn't happen until there has been a substantial drop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc",
"text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a651f5e725c9119d74e6d1ffd06df272",
"text": "Many people think money velocity is the most important thing in the economy that is why war is *good* for the economy. But during WWII the USA and all others countries had rationing. The whole reason to have a better economy is so we can live better lives; not to put rationed on but we can buy. After WWII where peoples lives better? No we(US) had 418,500 dead, many wounded and many years of rationing. Same apples to Hurricane Harvey families had homes and jobs. Now they have nothing. Just because they are spending retirement fund on rebuilding doesn't mean their lives are better. So yes there is more velocity in money in where Hurricane Harvey hit. But it is happening for the wrong reasons.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d10eb268437ac3cb2c275b49b796db2d",
"text": "From Dimson, Elroy, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton. Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2002: Disappointingly, the small firm effect has not proved the road to great riches since soon after its discovery, the US size premium went into reverse. This was repeated in the United Kingdom and virtually all other markets around the world. Despite their disappointing performance in recent years, the very long-run record of small-caps remains one of outperformance in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, mid- and small-size companies are still an important asset class. Their differential performance over long periods of history shows that there is useful scope for investors to reduce risk by diversifying across the “large” and the “small” capitalization sectors of the market. Furthermore, given the pervasiveness of the size effect across the entire size spectrum, it is important to all investors since the size tilt of any portfolio will strongly influence its short- and long-run performance. This holds true whether there is a size premium or a size discount. The size effect has certainly proved persistent and robust. What is at issue is whether we should continue to expect a size premium over the longer haul. And accompanying charts: And one chart from BlackRock:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16ffb29fce791fb8d2fac3d9c6fefb74",
"text": "On Black Friday, 1929,the market fell from over 350 to just above 200. If you were following your plan then you would buy in at about 200. But look what the market did for two years after Black Friday. It went down to about 50. You would have lost around 75% of your capital.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86299ef4bea9c9731e109598830c18b3",
"text": "I would say the most challenging fact for this assertion is that HFT firms operate with extremely limited capital bases. For a stock with say 10m shares ADV, even a very large and successful HFT strategy might use a position limit of no more than 5000 shares. That is to say if you sum up and net the buys and sells for a stock across the day the HFT firm will never exceed 10,000 shares (2x position limits assuming it completely flipped) on a stock that trades 10,000,000 shares on a given day. The high volumes are attained through high turnover, the strategy might trade up to 500,000 shares (or 5% of the volume) attaining a 50x turnover. But that brings me back to the original point. In the market microstructure literature market impact generally has been found to scale linearly or even sub-linearly for net volume executed. If I alternate between thousands of 1 lot buy and sell orders, it would be very difficult for me to move the market because the market impact of every one of my buy orders roughly cancels the market impact of my almost exactly equal number of sell orders. There might be a higher-order mechanism at work, but I'm genuinely curious what you think it might be. How could strategies that attain such small net positions have such out-sized impact on market direction?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "577d32a6386ae00278c2b00cdf53fbc9",
"text": "\"I would change that statement to \"\"very few people can CONSISTENTLY beat the market \"\". Successful strategies will get piled into and reduce returns. Markets will pick up inefficiencies, but at the same time they do exists. Tons of interesting reading especially in regards to value. Is there a risk premium that we don't know for value? Or is it a market behavior thing?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9d0671f97e043bc4c5aab149a7f419b",
"text": "It is not unheard of. Celebrity investors such as Warren Buffet and Carl Icahn gained notoriety by more than doubling investments some years, with a few very stellar trades and bets. Doubling, as in a 100% gain, is actually conservative if you want to play that game, as 500%, 1200% and greater gains are possible and were achieved by the two otherwise unrelated people I mentioned. This reality is opposite of the comparably pitiful returns that Warren Buffet teaches baby boomers about, but compounding on 2-5% gains annually is a more likely way to build wealth. It is unreasonable to say and expect that you will get the outcome of doubling an investment year over year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9670c10dc409419af2d730357da438bb",
"text": "Stocks in the Weimar hyperinflation are discussed in When Money Dies. I don't own a copy of the book but here is a link to a blog post about it. Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights Basically, the stock market did very well (i.e. the US dollar value of stocks increased quite a lot. Of course, the price of everything increased if measured in marks.) Quote from the article: Bottom line: In marks, stocks had an amazing run. Even in USD they had a nice runup. It makes sense that the stock market would skyrocket because (a) if money has no value, then people will want to replace money with tangible things like goods, and since a stock represents a share in the factories and things which a company owns, it makes sense that you would want them and (b) if money has no value anyway, why not gamble with it? I would be interested to hear what happened in other hyperinflations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c964a2755a0c7300abb81a9c680931f6",
"text": "It certainly creates an opportunity for the re-distribution of wealth. Money will be transferred from insurance companies to construction companies. Businesses that go under will be replaced by ones that survived. Some companies will make a profit out of this, but as you have already figured out, no new wealth is created by the disaster. (Although lots has been destroyed, so we are looking at a net loss.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "686353aa0176a8522cfd0e1abcfd9131",
"text": "Over the last 100 years this has happened twice. It cant be considered an outlier. Especially considering the misery is far from over, euro crisis, looming pension crisis, food crisis, etc. There are a lot of things far from resolved. An event that happens once every 50 years is hardly an outlier just unlikely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4e37567e6c43bb6e80006ce502ad72",
"text": "\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_exuberance > Clearly, sustained low inflation implies less uncertainty about the future, and lower risk premiums imply higher prices of stocks and other earning assets. We can see that in the inverse relationship exhibited by price/earnings ratios and the rate of inflation in the past. But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade? > — \"\"The Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society\"\", 1996-12-05\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5357ae76bad6f93e3cf49890edff622b",
"text": "\"Stocks \"\"go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index....\"\" This was true in the 20th century in America. It was not true (over the whole century) for other major countries like Germany, Russia, Japan, or China. (It was more or less true for Britain and certain Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada.) A lot of this had to do with which countries were occupied (or not) during the two world wars. In one of his company's annual reports, Warren Buffett pointed out that the U.S. standard of living went up 6-7 times in the 20th century, that this was unprecedented (and might not be repeatable in the 21st century). The performance of the U.S. stock market in the past century is representative of those (and other) past facts. If a different set of facts prevails going forward, the U.S. stock market would be reflective of those \"\"different\"\" facts.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8de932ffe4020879ee6f6b0e4cec2585
|
What assets would be valuable in a post-apocalyptic scenario?
|
[
{
"docid": "eb6cf381a81bcc5bf1f0ada803b42b6f",
"text": "Gold and silver are for after the crisis, not during. Gold and silver are far more likely to be able to be exchanged for things you need, since they are rare, easily divided, etc. Getting land away from where the crap is happening is also good, but it's more than that. Say you have land somewhere. How will the locals view you if you move there to hunker down only when things go bad? They won't really trust you, and you'll inherit a new set of problems. Building relationships in an off-the-beaten-path area requires a time investment. Investing in lifestyle in general is good. Lifestyle isn't just toys, but it's privacy, peace of mind, relationships with people with whom you can barter skills, as well as the skills you might think you'd need to do more than just get by in whatever scenario you envision. For the immediate crisis, you'd better have the things you'll need for a few months. Stores probably won't be supplied on any regular basis, and the shelves will be bare. Trying to use gold or silver during the crisis just makes you a target for theft. With regard to food, it's best to get acclimated to a diet of what you'd have on hand. If you get freeze-dried food, eat it now, so that it's not a shock to your system when you have to eat it. (Can you tell I've been thinking about this? :) )",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "575030f448925974f3fa677897b9fe52",
"text": "This is going to be a list of some things that will likely be of value immediately after some apocalyptic event. However, note that I am not answering your question of what you should invest in now to take advantage of such an event. That is a pretty ridiculous notion. Preparing oneself for such a possibility is certainly a good idea. That said, there are some realistic limitations to how you could take advantage of such a situation. Namely, the very real requirement of physical security. Unless you have a huge posse -- armed to the teeth -- to defend your cache, someone will come along with a bigger and better armed group to take it. (Not to mention that I am the type of person that would -- at least -- consider organizing such a group to take you down; if only as a matter of principle.) Guns & ammo (Also, knives; ideally ones that can be used as weapons and for food preparation/hunting.) Alcohol. Especially liquor. It's concentrated and easier to store than beer or wine. Beside for getting inebriated, it is useful as a sedative and antiseptic. Non-perishable foods. Canned goods are obvious. Though, grains and cereals can be stored with relative ease under some circumstances. (Obviously, not so easily done in an urban area.) Methods of starting a fire. Preferably rugged ones, such as flint and steel. (Lighters would only be of limited use. Matches are bulky and require water-tight storage.) Salt and/or salt-licks. (Possibly, other forms of non-perishable bait.) As bstpierre puts it, hunting will be about survival not sport. Hand-tools. Textiles, fabrics, thread and needles. Medicines of all sorts, though especially antibiotics, antiseptics and painkillers. Books of a practical nature. Topics such as: wilderness survival, cooking, carpentry, etc. The list is mostly ordered in terms of value & practicality. Ultimately, I doubt there is much that will provide a practical investment idea for such a scenario. The physical security issue is a big limiting factor. In a post-apocalyptic scenario it goes back to who is bigger, stronger and better armed. One thing does come to mind: knowledge. Prepare yourself with the skills and knowledge you need to survive in such a scenario and you will be invaluable. Also, as bstpierre notes in the comments, connections will likely also be important. (Probably local or nearby connections.) No one person can do it all alone. It will come down to cooperation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c77b5f83deb90b892d8f58e51b08249",
"text": "Bullets, canned goods, and farm supplies that don't need gas (e.g. seed, feed, plows).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07fc07ef99b20b8babc5659d64b930b9",
"text": "This is a long term investment but can be very useful during tough times. Be prepared not only to take but to give as well. Moreover:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "894b7a0f3c3a8af10d0e9f07ae32fc46",
"text": "I find these type of questions silly, but I'll bite:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "049304ac4dbd80b55fd4c9ef6e7bcf26",
"text": "Guns. Without them, any other conceivable asset would be taken from you. By someone with guns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd635c4552c760a3c33deb1f1b4ff579",
"text": "A book on the power of persuasion. The people will need you to lead them to the glory land like the Deacon* from Waterworld *Dennis Hopper. Study up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec6afc1397f4c85fbf66584762ce4b9e",
"text": "Apocalyptic like MAD MAX, huh? Well, no one so far has mentioned Gasoline, not paper gasoline futures but the real thing in barrels or tankers. Guns, ammo, sure... but if everyone on the ground is shooting each other I'd prefer an ultralight helicopter. You all have watched MAD MAX, right? On a more serious note, there is a country in the South Pacific that never saw fighting in world war 2 due to its remoteness, but is large and developed enough to be agriculturally pretty much self sufficient, and with a low population has plenty of space. Might be good to squirrel away something down there...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c81a552c36f71fd5895519436975081",
"text": "Barton Biggs's book Wealth, War and Wisdom aims to answer the question of what investments are best-suited to preserving value despite large-scale catastrophes by looking at how various investments and assets performed in countries affected by WWII. In Japan, stocks and urban land turned out to be good investments; in France, farm land and gold did better. Stocks outperformed bonds in nearly every country. Phil Greenspun recently wrote a review of the book.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c69d09b34eabd583b8c1df493606605c",
"text": "Assuming that the financial system broke down, not enough supply of essential commodities or food but there is political and administrative stability and no such chaos that threatens your life by physical attacks. The best investment would then be some paddy fields, land, some cows, chickens and enough clothing , a safe house to stay and a healthy life style that enables you to work for food and some virtue at heart and management skills to get people work for you on your resources so that they can survive with you (may be you earn some profit -that is up to your moral standards to decide, how much). It all begins to start again; a new Financial System has to be in place….!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b",
"text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "332c7311f705acec1dd28a25e372bdce",
"text": "I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8d5cf282efac11e79e96e042aacb9f1",
"text": "\"... until they collapse too!!! This is \"\"Luft Gesheft\"\": German/Yiddish for \"\"making money out of thin air\"\". Money should be made by making things and building things - adding value to something. Apple Computers is one example - they make real money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca0fd39e8414dd94c6d787fd00e425f7",
"text": "Taking into account your POV I would recommend mostly goods that will be harder to obtain, precious metals (not only gold) and forex (although the forex aproach depends on some other country not having troubles with it's own economy which in a world as interconnected as ours by internet and all the new technologies doesn't seem likely) i highly recommend silver which is cheaper than gold and is stable enough in the long term",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b61cd51d2cc4371f170a880274c6812",
"text": "Investing for your future through stocks isn’t for the faint of heart. While there are stocks that can withstand our volatile market, there are few that can guarantee their business will still be a business 20 or 30 years from now. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) Report Benigans would always be with us, but they no longer exist.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5847f3eccb16327595bb29b661629dc5",
"text": "Cash can be a lifesaver after a natural disaster. I was in central Mississippi in 2005 after Katrina. There were a few things selling for cash only (generators for one). The banks opened pretty quick (1 day) where I was; south of me it took much longer (days or weeks).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab8e2c4f62e90b429e52348b090e65d3",
"text": "\"First of all, metals are commodities. So if you're phrasing that as metals and/or commodities, then that's poorly worded. If you're phrasing that as \"\"metal commodity reports\"\" then say as such. Second, and more importantly: what commodities? Power is very different than coffee. Different places specialize in different things, all banks are good in some and weak in others. There's no generic \"\"commodity\"\" market but rather a huge range of specifically different products traded in the future.You learn more than a small fraction of this universe so pick one or two specific products from the macro buckets (i.e. energy, grains, metals) and focus on those.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a577accc4d151f7a1e3550a1b212d49",
"text": "Vehicles (plural, because I'd be filling multiple roles, and also because I'd really prefer to have spare parts). Self-sufficient farm with machine shop, heavy-duty fabric production/sewing capacity. Hunting/camping gear. That kind of thing. I have about $600 in student loan debt remaining, which should be gone in the next year. No car loan (own my truck outright), don't own a house, carry 0 balance on my credit card. I suspect I'm a bit older than you (28) and I'm finding increasingly that I'm feeling financially strained by both current needs and projected needs. Moreso future than current, as a matter of fact, though I am unemployed right now. No matter how I look at it, barring some exceptional luck, there's no good way to obtain what I feel is needed to ensure that I can retire in safety. The current system basically forces you to take on nigh-crippling debt and hope like hell you can remain employed almost constantly through the most productive years of your life so that you may retire with some degree of security. 75K would make me feel a lot closer, but it only really deals with the immediate concerns and gives me room to hope to rectify the future ones in the next decade. If it were a completely foolproof 75K with no chance of vanishing, it'd go a lot further -- but still wouldn't alleviate my worries entirely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ff176eb7c422c1fc2cc9399e488d3c1",
"text": "I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b72db17639d8369ec3dcb5b7f060b69f",
"text": "\"Buying gold, silver, palladium, copper and platinum. The first two I am thinking about new currencies. The last three for the perpetual need for the metals in industry. I also have invested in Numismatic coins. They are small portable and easy to hide around the house. I only collect silver coins, so even if the world really blows up and numismatics goes out the window, I can depend on them forming a barter system through the content value of the silver. The problem with collectable items is that they are easy to see. For example, a nice painting just shouts out \"\"steal me!\"\". I don't buy large gold coins. As long as the coin is below 1/4 Oz gold I collect it. If the dollar does finaly collapse, to be honest it will be so bad that I think weapons will be order of the day. Do I think it will collapse...nah never.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3920dc7fad00ba1d6cb961f24716c96a",
"text": "Yes, because you cannot have an exponential growth rate that is faster than the rate at which the economy grows on the long term. 100% growth is much more than the few percent at which the economy grows, so your share in the World economy would approximately double every year. Today the value of all the assets in the World economy is about $200 trillion. If you start with an investment of just $1000 and this doubles every year, then you'll own all the World's assets in 37.5 years, assuming this doesn't grow. You can, of course, take into account that it does grow, this will yield a slightly larger time before you own the entire World.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfb22c159524565b6c9b3c92161645a8",
"text": "\"In addition to the \"\"The Time Machine\"\"-type society you're talking about where the working class basically end up devolving into hunting game for elites, i'd worry that the enhancement for the skilled-labor jobs you describe would include some dog collars. If I'm an enhanced engineer I'll start my own company, not make money for someone else. If I'm a super soldier I'd hit up academi (blackwater), not get treated like shit in the army. If these technologies can enhance intelligence, it can probably also steer traits like loyalty, ambition, etc to ensure that the person acts more like an appliance rather than a genius.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "648dc0f65d1f823e09181327ef4871ea",
"text": "I'm not sure I'd say the assets they had were worthless. One of the big controversies was whether it was a solvency crisis (bad assets) or a liquidity crisis (fine assets, but if everyone sells illiquid assets there's a fire sale problem). The US and Buffett bet it was a liquidity crisis, and they were proven right.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "6d9723d9c0973eba47a049d0c9b17649",
"text": "Different risks require different hedges. You won't find a single hedge that will protect you against any risk. The best way to think about this is who would benefit if those events occurred? Those are the people you want to invest in. So if a war broke out, who would benefit? Defense contractors. Security companies. You get the idea. You also need to think about if you really need to hedge against those things now or not. For example, I wouldn't bother to hedge against global warming or peak oil. It's not like one morning you're going to wake up, turn on CNNfn and see that the stock market is down 500 points because global warming or peak oil just hit. These are things that happen gradually and you can react to them gradually as they happen.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9b76d5cfafabe9515ee2d5c1a3e54201
|
Balance Sheets: How a company can save money for further investments
|
[
{
"docid": "f5fe6bf4105d8bd78f591f6298bb715c",
"text": "A company CAN hold on to money. This is called retained earnings. Not all money is due back to the owners (i.e. stockholders), but only the amount that the board of directors chooses to pay back in the form of dividends. There is a lot more detail around this, but this is the simple answer to your question.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "46209eafc0c865103c6e95b81c4e4564",
"text": "I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa1a7d4b336581a906ccd15d29d2bb78",
"text": "\"Financial statements provide a large amount of specialized, complex, information about the company. If you know how to process the statements, and can place the info they provide in context with other significant information you have about the market, then you will likely be able to make better decisions about the company. If you don't know how to process them, you're much more likely to obtain incomplete or misleading information, and end up making worse decisions than you would have before you started reading. You might, for example, figure out that the company is gaining significant debt, but might be missing significant information about new regulations which caused a one time larger than normal tax payment for all companies in the industry you're investing in, matching the debt increase. Or you might see a large litigation related spending, without knowing that it's lower than usual for the industry. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - if you know how to process them, and how to use the information, then you already have the answer to your question. I'd say, the more important question to ask is: \"\"Do I have the time and resources necessary to learn enough about how businesses run, and about the market I'm investing in, so that financial statements become useful to me?\"\" If you do have the time, and resources, do it, it's worth the trouble. I'd advise in starting at the industry/business end of things, though, and only switching to obtaining information from the financial statements once you already have a good idea what you'll be using it for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f84a8ee420e08c0f644f89ae9183c0bb",
"text": "What exactly does the balance sheet of a software company tell you? The majority of meaningful assets are inside your employees' heads. You can't capitalize R&D and depreciate it, it's a straight flow through to the income statement. And you can't put human capital on a balance sheet. Software firms generally carry little to no debt and their cap structure is almost all equity. What are you going to put up for collateral when your product is bits and bytes?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1596afff2f3ee3401968378a590116e6",
"text": "Somewhat. The balance sheet will include liabilities which as Michael Kjörling points out would tell you the totals for the debt which would often be loans or bonds depending on one's preferred terminology. However, if the company's loan was shorter than the length of the quarter, then it may not necessarily be reported is something to point out as the data is accurate for a specific point in time only. My suggestion is that if you have a particular company that you want to review that you take a look at the SEC filing in full which would have a better breakdown of everything in terms of assets, liabilities, etc. than the a summary page. http://investor.apple.com/ would be where you could find a link to the 10-Q that has a better breakdown though it does appear that Apple doesn't have any bonds outstanding. There are some companies that may have little debt due to being so profitable in their areas of business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82b6a2a5bc1315d91a89c6104c98a82a",
"text": "The numbers aside (I'd not assume 12%/yr) there is no limit to the balance. There are 401(k) accounts that have great matching and profit sharing deposits putting the per year limit closer to $45k, combine that with company stock in, say, Apple which has risen 60 fold this past decade, and balances in the tens of millions are possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28474d1ea5dcfb7bad11f4800154c06d",
"text": "for starters get a cheap easy accounting software pack like quickbooks and have the salesmen train you on it's use and set-up. the 50k you put into the company will count as paid up share capital. then any future withdrawal from company account will show as loan to director.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d59f698a6eea79873456b6214ffaca0",
"text": "You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8251000cc2c3e8b95abfb04205e6fcc7",
"text": "\"The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere. They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a \"\"company\"\". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued. A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future. Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example. But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up. Would it be worth anything? Of course it would. It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this \"\"promise to pay\"\" is much like a non-dividend paying stock. Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up. It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecd8bd38a8923493a989fd91c8d71b8e",
"text": "In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker. This is called a margin account. The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan. If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "509035e481f4760683199a219b1375d9",
"text": "\"If by saying you wish to invest \"\"for the long term 5-10 years\"\" I take it you mean to hold a stock for between 5-10 years. If this is the case, this is the fundamental flaw in your screening algorithm. No company stock price continues to go up without end for 5-10 years. The price of every company's stock goes down at some point. You have to decide on a company by company basis whether you want to ride out the downturn or sell and get out. This is a personal decision based on your own research. The list of screening criteria you list indicates you are looking for solid earnings companies. Try not to apply these rules rigidly because every company runs through a rough patch. At times past, GE (for example) met all of your criteria. However, in 2017, it would not and therefore would not meet your screening criteria. Would you sell GE if you owned it? Maybe, or maybe you would hold through the downturn. The same be said for MSFT in 2010 or AAPL pre-Jobs return. A rule you may want to add to your list: know the company business well; that is, don't invest in companies you have no understanding of their business model.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0",
"text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce310edffda39222d1798d3c4619e581",
"text": "\"No, having to borrow money does not necessarily mean a company will have a hard time paying the interest on it. Similarly, having to take out a mortgage on a house does not mean a person will not be able to make their mortgage payments. Borrowing money can be a way to spend future money instead of present money (at a cost, of course). A company might not have all that money at the moment, but that in no way implies they won't have it in the future. And as you allude to in your question where you talk about \"\"funding some … plans\"\", a company might be able to grow itself—possibly increasing future profits—by borrowing money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d2807c840985b9088a4bab68077ea99",
"text": "\"I heard today while listening to an accounting podcast that a balance sheet... can be used to determine if a company has enough money to pay its employees. The \"\"money\"\" that you're looking at is specifically cash on the balance sheet. The cash flows document mentioned is just a more-finance-related document that explains how we ended at cash on the balance sheet. ...even looking for a job This is critical, that i don't believe many people look at when searching for a job. Using the ratios listed below can (and many others), one can determine if the business they are applying for will be around in the next five years. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one good)? My favorite example of a high cash company is Nintendo. Rolling at 570 Billion USD IN CASH ALONE is astonishing. Using the ratios we can see how well they are doing. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one bad)? Tesla is a good example of the later on being cash poor. Walk me though how to understand such a document? *Note: This question is highly complex and will take months of reading to fully comprehend the components that make up the financial statements. I would recommend that this question be posted completely separate.\"",
"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": "b2212bf69412ea6c14f623eea2fd0ac0",
"text": "\"Are you asking \"\"what does everybody else do/spend\"\"? I think any amount less that 90% is \"\"safe\"\", but if depends on your goals. Saving a \"\"dime of every dollar\"\" is a good rule of thumb for retirement, so 90% is left to spend. But I believe that is the wrong way to think about it. You have expenses; some are optional and some are not. The percentages aren't the important thing. What is important is that you meet your obligations and meet your goals. Everybody is different, so I don't think you can reasonably your percent of expenses to somebody else. In setting up your budget, go the simple route. You can always get super detailed later if you want. INCOME As you have extra funds, be sure you have an emergency fund (~6 months of expenses) and a fully funded retirement. Pay off any outstanding debts. If you are so fortunate to have some left over, then revisit the savings amount or become an investor like many people here; or have fun and go on vacations; or buy a nicer car. The point being you will know you can afford it. If you put detailed categories under those main categories, that will give you a picture of where you spend you money and you can fix that if desire. If it bothers you that you spend 15% of your income on imported classical music, you can adjust that with a habit change.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
54b7cd4cc5d35d5102311f1371951298
|
Cannot get a mortgage because I work through a recruiter
|
[
{
"docid": "a95d74816515e24db082c2b78997b057",
"text": "To a mortgage lender, it appears that you have a temporary contract (perhaps extending for nine more months) with a agency that supplies workers to companies that need temporary help. You have been placed currently with a company and are making good money, but that job might disappear soon and then you will have no income while your recruiter tries to find you another assignment. How will you make your mortgage payments then? The recruiter agency's contract with your current company probably has clauses to the effect that the company agrees to not offer you a permanent job unless it pays a head-hunter's fee to the recruiter agency. Your contract with the recruiter agency also likely has clauses to the effect that if the company where you have been placed offers you a permanent job, you must pay the recruiter company a fee (typically one or two months of salary) to the recruiter agency as compensation for releasing you from your current contract (unless the company hiring you pays the head-hunter's fee). This is why the company where you are working right now wants to wait until after your contract with the recruiter company ends before making you an offer of permanent employment. Be aware that sometimes such clauses extend out to three months after the ending date of your contract with the recruiter company. As far as the condo is concerned, unless there is a specific one that you absolutely must have because it has an ocean view or other desirable properties, you may well find that another condo in the same complex is available some months from now. If you are lucky, it may well have an acceptable ocean view. If you are even luckier, it may be the condo that you absolutely must have which has remained unsold all that time -- as you said, the economy is crappy -- and you will be able to buy it for a lower price from an owner getting desperate to make a sale. To answer your question: is there any way around this? My recommendation is to simply wait out the end of your recruiter agency contract and get a permanent job with the company where you have been placed. Then there are no issues. If not, get your company to make a written offer of a permanent job starting nine months from now and hope that this (together with your current employment) impresses your bank into lending you money. This might not work, though. In the early 1970s, one of my friends was offered a job at a large aerospace company which lost a major contract in the interim period between offer and joining. My friend showed up for work on the day he was supposed to start, and instead of being processed through HR etc, his job was terminated on the spot, he was paid one day's salary, and shown the door. Times were crappy then too. If this does not work, get your company to offer you a permanent job right away, pay off the recruiter company yourself, and then go to the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51e02e18fe8ff18b3bbd421ca9eeee5c",
"text": "As a follow-up, I was able to find a bank that gave me a loan. I just called several banks listed on Yelp, and one ended up working with me. It is also possible that the previous banks misunderstood me and assumed I was 1099 and not W2. I made it very clear to this guy that I was W2, and there was absolutely no problem. Also, it turned out the recruiter I work for has special paperwork their employees can give to lenders to verify W2 employment. So, I have been in my condo since January. And, the condo was a little under $250K. Anyway, I still think it's ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS that banks would not give a loan to a web developer who is in super high demand and making well over 100K/year -- even if I am 1099. I have never, ever in my life been late on a single payment for anything, and I have an 800 credit score. To even question that I could not make payments is ludicrous. Whenever I put my resume on monster.com (just one web site), I receive about 20 phone calls daily -- and I am not exaggerating even slightly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bf287ee3b6953698f41118db739d1d4",
"text": "They are looking at your work history to see that you have maintained a similar level of income for a period of time, and that you have a reasonable expectation to continue that for the foreseeable future. They are looking to make a commitment for 15-30 years. They see the short term contract, and have no confidence in making a guess to your ability to pay. Before the real estate bubble burst, you would have had a chance with a no documentation loan. These were setup for people who earned fluctuating incomes, mostly due to being commissioned based. They were easily abused, and lenders have gotten away from them becasue they were burned too often. Just like building your credit rating over time, and your down payment over time, you might have to wait to build a work history.",
"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": "8c0ae77b1a0340e3d1a487b8965a81af",
"text": "Some options: See if the seller will sell to you on Contract. With a significant down payment the seller may be willing to sell you the condo on contract. This fill in the year or so you will probably need to go from contractor to full time employee with enough time on the job to get a mortgage. Keep Shopping. Be up front with the lenders with the problems you are running into and see if any of them can find you a solution. You may need to take a higher rate in the short term but hopefully you can refinance in a few years to a more reasonable rate. Check with a local bank or credit union. Many times local banks or CU's will finance high demand properties that may be out of favor with the super banks that have no ties to your community. These banks sometimes realize that just because the standard spreadsheet says this is a bad risk the reality is the specific property you are interested in is not the risk that it appears on paper. You will have to find a bank that actually retains its mortgages as many local banks have become agents that just sell mortgages to the mortgage market. Talk to a Realtor. If you are not using one now it may be time to engage one. They can help you navigate these bumps and steer you towards lenders that are more amenable to the loan you need.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "16b5bb7ef98a6a43431fb71c215ad56f",
"text": "I think you have just explained why it impossible for me to find a job. I have the skill set that matches the job description and hardly ever get asked for an interview. Do you have any further information about how widespread this practice may be. What size organizations does it affect?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e895d2d75a7f4b69c0fc7e5fcf2c8b36",
"text": "\"I've had a mortgage changing hands with mid size companies for many years with no problems. I've handled many complex financial and technical transactions with multiple parties with no problems over the course decades. Then, after my last refinance, my mortgage fell into the hands of JP Morgan Chase. The bank sent one letter to let me know of the transfer, and in the next week they sent my loan to collections for what I later found to be Chase's process error in the transfer. For the next three months, I ended up in customer service hell as one Chase group threatened to foreclose on my house while another group told me to ignore the imminent foreclosure notices. One started to \"\"investigate\"\" the transfer while the collections group tried to make me pay my mortgage payment twice. The mess only ended up being taken care of after I tracked down the old owner of my loan and had them refund the \"\"lost\"\" payment directly to me - normally they would have sent it to the company buying the loan, but could not get Chase to accept the payment. Then I paid Chase that exact same mortgage payment. All the time the Chase internal investigations and collections department were completely incapable of a simple call to previous holder of the loan. A company handling millions of mortgage transactions is somehow incapable of handling a minor glitch in a mortgage transfer? It's either utter incompetence or total malice in picking up extra penalty fees or maybe an occasional forclosure if homeowners didn't say on top of the details. This is what we used our collective tax dollars to bail out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b381fce7dd29bb532e1caeb0c23caf36",
"text": "\"Let me summarize your question for you: \"\"I do not have the down payment that the lender requires for a mortgage. How can I still acquire the mortgage?\"\" Short answer: Find another lender or find more cash. Don't overly complicate the scenario. The correct answer is that the lender is free to do what they want. They deem it too risky to lend you $1.1M against this $1.8M property, unless they have $700k up front. You want their money, so you must accept their terms. If other lenders have the same outlook, consider that you cannot afford this house. Find a cheaper house.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e60b5105c8933c1c16a049a05d7b91f",
"text": "\"First off you are either lying or are seriously disillusioned about the recruiting process because it is very common knowledge that trading puts significantly less emphasis on GPA that IBanking. . Secondly, why are you making the assumption that there was nothing exemplary on their resume? Having a low GPA doesn't automatically imply that the person's resume is trash. And again, if \"\"no one\"\" got past the initial round of interviews because of a 3.2 GPA I know quite a few firms who would be out some very good traders.\"",
"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": "6f2d89c8eae4640911385df7d8e221b8",
"text": "This is pretty normal. I am in the UK and currently doing the exact same thing. As some answers state there is additional tax law called IR35. But thats all it is, an additional tax law that may be applicable to your situation (it very well may not). It is all perfectly legal and common (all my university friends now do it). You will be the director of a company, and invoice the recruiters company. This has benefits and disadvantages. Personally I love it, but each to their own. Don't do it if you don't want to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dcc878a79104a3e26c4ed3ba82668fb",
"text": "In a process called collateralization, your mortgage is combined with others to form a security that other can invest in. When done right, this process provides liquidity, more money to be lent for more loans. When done wrong, bad things happen. My mortgage happens to be held by the issuing bank. Yours was sold into such a pool of mortgages. One effect of this is the reselling of the servicing of the loan. I've had other mortgages that were sold every year, but I never paid ahead. With this bank, I'm on my fifth refinance, but the bank keeps the loan in house no matter what. I don't know if there's any correlation, it depends on the originating bank, in my opinion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81e079f623118c63a7ed8de3064df61d",
"text": "A bank can reject a loan if they feel you do not meet the eligibility criteria. You can talk to few banks and find out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0857dc73b15654d4408d74fcb30e6c9",
"text": "Marketing strategy by far was and continues to be the biggest problem. Choosing and setting up things like corporate entity, billing, data backup, calendars were a distant second problem. Labor law is too confusing for me to hire anyone but independent contractors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab55a38bce19c987afb5a8ec3c885fdd",
"text": "I worked at Wells Fargo Home Mortgage right before all the ARM loan stuff hit the news. Everyone on the board was constantly talking about increasing their portfolios. One of the main ways they aimed to do this was by creating new loan products aimed at non-traditional borrowers (read: people who didn't meet the requirements for their traditional loan products). We had quarterly company-wide meetings to inform us about this kind of thing and it never really seemed like a great plan to me. Two years later, and the banks started failing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e511afc8eba41870dd7e88e079f1499a",
"text": "The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location. Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer. So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant). If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage. In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position. That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close. This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house. The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it. They don't really care about the house they're selling. Their job is to make the transition easy. With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase. If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over. That could make the employment change fall through. This is a variation of a no contingencies sale. Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier. Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker. But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way. In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay. This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure. If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement. Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement. The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response. And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier. You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision. You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry. If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal. They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that. Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e27990571d0ade28b27f9bfc3a3bac6d",
"text": "Start with the bank where you have your checking and savings account. They can streamline some of the paperwork, because they can see how much you make, and have access to several years worth of bank statement. Legitimate mortgage companies do publish their rates. But there is no guarantee that you will qualify for the best rate without them knowing your credit score, salary, and down payment information. There is no way to know that you have the best rate because of the time lag involved. You will pick the best one you can work with, but the rates can change every day. Even when you lock in the rates, other companies can drift lower. Once you have started down the application process you will reach a point where switching companies will cost you time and money. Once you decide to purchase a house, the contract usually only gives you a few weeks to prove that you have financing in place. Therefore you will have to start the process before deciding on the house. Some advance work is needed to give you an idea of the maximum monthly payment you can afford, which will then based on the rate and down payment determine the maximum house you can buy. I have had good luck with my credit union, but there is no guarantee that yours will be competitive. Keep in mind that while rates are very important, some people also value customer service, and also like that the mortgage won't be sold to out of town investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d1140864a70857fc25330faae402724",
"text": "This may only apply to Canada, but I would ask if the mortgages they lend are non-transferable. Meaning if you decide in year 2 of your 5 year term that you want to sell and move you pay a penalty, rather than be able to transfer the mortgage to a new house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "818edb54d776c4eabb8f6feafd817655",
"text": "If I were in your shoes (I would be extremely happy), here's what I would do: Get on a detailed budget, if you aren't doing one already. (I read the comments and you seemed unsure about certain things.) Once you know where your money is going, you can do a much better job of saving it. Retirement Savings: Contribute up to the employer match on the 401(k)s, if it's greater than the 5% you are already contributing. Open a Roth IRA account for each of you and make the max contribution (around $5k each). I would also suggest finding a financial adviser (w/ the heart of a teacher) to recommend/direct your mutual fund investing in those Roth IRAs and in your regular mutual fund investments. Emergency Fund With the $85k savings, take it down to a six month emergency fund. To calculate your emergency fund, look at what your necessary expenses are for a month, then multiply it by six. You could place that six month emergency fund in ING Direct as littleadv suggested. That's where we have our emergency funds and long term savings. This is a bare-minimum type budget, and is based on something like losing your job - in which case, you don't need to go to starbucks 5 times a week (I don't know if you do or not, but that is an easy example for me to use). You should have something left over, unless your basic expenses are above $7083/mo. Non-retirement Investing: Whatever is left over from the $85k, start investing with it. (I suggest you look into mutual funds) it. Some may say buy stocks, but individual stocks are very risky and you could lose your shirt if you don't know what you're doing. Mutual funds typically are comprised of many stocks, and you earn based on their collective performance. You have done very well, and I'm very excited for you. Child's College Savings: If you guys decide to expand your family with a child, you'll want to fund what's typically called a 529 plan to fund his or her college education. The money grows tax free and is only taxed when used for non-education expenses. You would fund this for the max contribution each year as well (currently $2k; but that could change depending on how the Bush Tax cuts are handled at the end of this year). Other resources to check out: The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey and the Dave Ramsey Show podcast.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40ff3bec8f9bde1127a59e24044bd34a",
"text": "\"I think that the general public is conditioned to think more in terms of points rather than percentages, so that 200 points is easier to fathom than the equivalent percent. We all translate internally what this means. Of course it is less precise, but it also makes for good copy in the publishing industry (\"\"Market Down 1000 points!\"\")\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ff8a0b7c4f0ce7c057a2ffcb983e92c6
|
What are some signs that the stock market might crash?
|
[
{
"docid": "ae55727bbd50c019ffc3bba54ce4b1f7",
"text": "Although it is impossible to predict the next stock market crash, what are some signs or measures that indicate the economy is unstable? These questions are really two sides of the same coin. As such, there's really no way to tell, at least not with any amount of accuracy that would allow you time the market. Instead, follow the advice of William Bernstein regarding long-term investments. I'm paraphrasing, but the gist is: Markets crash every so often. It's a fact of life. If you maintain financial and investment discipline, you can take advantage of the crashes by having sufficient funds to purchase when stocks are on sale. With a long-term investment horizon, crashes are actually a blessing since you're in prime position to profit from them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c7cd4dfefeb4623e8da5beb83ee96ab",
"text": "There are some economic signs as there are in all economic and business cycles, such as interest rates rising. However, a more effective way is to actually look at price action itself. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs followed by higher lows. The definition of a downtrend is lower lows followed by lower highs. So if you are looking to invest for the long term you can look at the weekly or even the monthly chart of the market say over the past 10, 15 or 20 years. Using these definitions on say the S&P500 if the price continues to make higher highs and higher lows then stay in the market. If the price makes a lower high than the previous high, then this is a warning sign that the trend may be about to end. The trend has not broken yet but it is a warning sign that it could be ending soon. If the price makes a higher low next followed by a higher high, then the trend continues and you just need to keep an eye on things. If, however, the price makes a lower low after the lower high this is a signal that the uptrend is over and you should get out of the market. If the price makes a lower low directly after a higher high, then be cautious and wait for confirmation that the uptrend is over. If you then get a lower high this is confirmation that the uptrend is over, you would then sell if prices drop below the previous low. If you invest in individual shares then you should keep an eye on the charts for the index and individual shares as well. The index chart will give you an indication if the uptrend is over for the whole market, then you can be more cautious in regards to the individual shares. You can then plan exit points on each individual share if their trends are broken too. If you have stop losses employed and the trend reverses on the index, this would be a good time to tighten your stop losses on individual shares. You can then buy back into the market when you determine that the downtrend is broken and prices start to show higher highs and higher lows again. Will there be occasions when the uptrend reverses and then after a short period starts trending up again, yes there might be, but the worse that will happen is that you pay a bit of extra brokerage to get out and then back into the market, and you might have to pay some capital gains tax on any profits made. But remember no one ever went broke making a profit. The most important thing to remember when investing is to conserve and protect your capital. I would rather pay some extra brokerage and some capital gains tax than see my portfolio drop by 50% or more, then take 5 years or more to recover. And remember, paying tax is a good thing, it means you made money. If you don't want to pay any tax it means you will never make any profits, because if you make profits you will have to pay tax one day.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d8746b923f8b8481c9122f86915fac71",
"text": "Your reaction to bad news is the greatest risk. Are you going to panic and pull all your money out when the market falls 20%? It will. Someday it will. The question is, will you have the stomach to stay the course and keep your money invested when the sky is falling and everyone is screaming that things are definitely going to get worse? If not, the timing of when you invest will matter not at all. My advice: Go all in ASAP. Remember that you don't care where the market is in 2 years. You're in your mid 40's, you care where the market is in 20 years. And 20 years from now, when you're in your mid 60's, you'll be caring about where the market is even further into the future.",
"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": "03bd51af0037dd95496e5d212684437d",
"text": "\"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation). That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing: a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the \"\"investment porn\"\" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries. Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34229cb943469f29f3afcf771448a72e",
"text": "The analysis is also flawed. Recent downturns in mining stocks are highlighted, but these stocks have been growing strongly for a long time now. Being spooked by a sudden downturn during a long upward swing is not a good investing strategy, but typical of the kind of idea that apparently makes for good news copy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fc6449416d4cd15fa5c851bc0040ca0",
"text": "If the equity market in the USA crashed, its very likely equity markets everywhere else would crash. The USA has a high number of the world's largest businesses and there are correlations between equity markets. So you need to think of equities as a global asset class, not regional. Your question is then a question about the correlation between equity markets and currency markets. Here's a guess: If equity markets crashed, you would see a lot of panic selling of stocks denominated in many currencies, but probably the most in USD, due to the large number of the world's largest businesses trading on US stock exchanges. Therefore, when the rest of the world sells US equities they receive cash USD, which they might sell for their local currency. That selling pressure would cause USD to fall. But, when equity markets crash there's a move to safety of the bond markets. The world's largest bond markets are denominated in which currency? Probably USD. So those who receive USD for their equities are going to spend that USD on bonds. In which case there is probably no correlation between equity markets and currency markets at all. A quick google search shows this kind of thing",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58326afbd47eef56681d95d0c67c1f8f",
"text": "I don't believe I said anything about the stock market going down, which happens regularly. It's not like municipal bond markets crash very often—once every few generations, maybe. So her being off by a couple years would be insignificant. Not saying I think it's going to happen. I'm just posing the question. If the municipal bond markets crashed within the next year, she would be vindicated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "086db281b329700ebd6002e719dceee4",
"text": "Are you kidding? The stock markets just took a nose dive this week. Perfect buying opportunity. Just be sure to dollar cost average your way in to avoid excessive timing risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "345ee357ebff024c4d84f5403004d19b",
"text": "\"I'm still very new to the world of finance. I'm learning about all of the derivatives and how money is made off of them, but it's crazy to me that everyone involved neglected the risk aspect of this. In hindsight, it's so easy to explain what was happening. I guess when everyone is making money hand over fist, it's easy to look the other way. Even the federal gov't played a tremendous role in the crash. Looking at that FRED graph is probably the easiest way to explain the ramifications of the crash. I'm reading [All the Devils Are Here](https://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/159184438X) right now that was recommended to me by my GF's father. It gives context to the crash in a digestible way, but isn't too dumbed down. I highly recommend it. The man played for the USA on the \"\"Miracle\"\" team and then went on to become a successful bonds trader. I've learned more from my conversations with him than I think I'll ever learn in school. Dude is brilliant and can go for hours on anything finance related.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746695f1ed40084921944d10b539c726",
"text": "Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up. Selling short allows for unlimited losses. Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game. If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense. For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign. Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live. Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe4a232f283d9d04afaebe8eee9c613",
"text": "\"No one is quite sure what happened (yet). Speculation includes: The interesting thing is that Procter & Gamble stock got hammered, as did Accenture. Both of which are fairly stable companies, that didn't make any major announcements, and aren't really connected to the current financial instability in Greece. So, there is no reason for there stock prices to have gone crazy like that. This points to some kind of screw up, and not a regular market force. Apparently, the trades involved in this event are going to be canceled. Edit #1: One thing that can contribute to an event like this is automatic selling triggered by stop loss orders. Say someone at Citi makes a mistake and sells too much of a stock. That drives the stock price below a certain threshold. Computers that were pre-programmed to sell at that point start doing their job. Now the price goes even lower. More stop-loss orders get triggered. Things start to snowball. Since it's all done by computer these days something like this can happen in seconds. All the humans are left scratching their heads. (No idea if that's what actually happened.) Edit #2: IEEE Spectrum has a pretty concise article on the topic. It also includes some links to follow. Edit #3 (05/14/2010): Reuters is now reporting that a trader at Waddell & Reed triggered all of this, but not through any wrongdoing. Edit #4 (05/18/2010): Waddell & Reed claims they didn't do it. The House Financial Services Subcommittee investigated, but they couldn't find a \"\"smoking gun\"\". I think at this point, people have pretty much given up trying to figure out what happened. Edit #5 (07/14/2010): The SEC still has no idea. I'm giving up. :-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f75da5b19a9c66456cf0d1479b60ed1",
"text": "If you're a market timer it's difficult to argue that now is not a very risky time to be in stocks. Just based on the PE we're in the second richest market in the last 100 years. Also, the Fed is about to start tightening on a weak economy. That's never good for stocks.",
"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": "749e4dccb2a859e367e5c70662cb7b13",
"text": "Trump equals institutional volatility, which equals market crashes. The longer he is around, the harder the crash will be, but don't worry, it will be blamed on the incoming administration anyway, like the 2007 crash was pinned to Obama. Reason and logic are required for healthy, stable markets, not so much for bull markets that grow based on twitter one liner news.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eadd1ce071908e6aa799fdfde787cf5",
"text": "I would also be getting out of the stock market if I noticed prices starting to fall and a crash possibly on the way. There are some good and quite simple techniques I would use to time the markets over the medium to long term. I have described some of them in the answer to this question of mine: What are some simple techniques used for Timing the Stock Market over the long term? You could use similar techniques in your investing. And in regards to back-testing DCA to Timing The Markets, I have done that too in my answer to the following question: Investing in low cost index fund — does the timing matter? Timing the Markets wins hand down. In regards to back-testing and the concerns Kent Anderson has brought up, when I back-test a trading strategy, if that strategy is successful, I then forward test it over a year or two to confirm the results. As with back-testing you can sometimes curve fit your criteria too much. By forward testing you are confirming that the strategy is robust over different market conditions. One strategy you can take when the market does start to fall is short selling, as mentioned by some already. I am now short selling using CFDs over the short to medium term as one of my more aggressive strategies. I have a longer term strategy where I do not short, but tighten my stop losses when the market starts to tank. Sometimes my positions will keep going up even though the market as a whole is heading down, and I can make an extra 5% to 10% on these positions before I get taken out. The rare position even continues going up during the whole downturn and when the market starts to recover. So I let the market decide when I get out and when I stay in, I leave my emotions out of it. The best thing you can do is have a written trading plan with all your criteria for getting into the market, your criteria for getting out of the market and your position sizing and risk management incorporated in the plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77fd2ba42b842290dde9656be5c6ca9a",
"text": "\"China's chief central banker warned markets are fully valued and therefore susceptible to a drastic price correction - triggered by a wide-spread, simultaneous reversal of opinion in the markets. Basically the point when the \"\"Greater Fool\"\" phenomenon ends and and selling pressure spikes as everyone starts getting out because they think everyone is. Simplified af but thats the laymen interpration of a minsky moment.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c7b638eedfda05a31a3d2b53aa90b233
|
How does the world - in aggregate - generate a non-zero return?
|
[
{
"docid": "854c8fa8a6896a7e1004e68dcdb3a9be",
"text": "I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "816d93ce99e7421f71d1401f0e49fca8",
"text": "It appears that you have bought into the Communist lie. Milton Friedman lats it all out so well. No transaction ever occurs unless both sides in the transaction benefit. Let's say you are out for a walk. While walking you feel hungry. You find two quarters ($0.50) in your pocket. You enter the nearest convenience store and look for a snack cake to buy. You find a Twinky selling for 40 cents. You pay for the Twinky and leave the store while eating it. You also leave with a dime in your pocket. To you the Twinky is worth 50 cents as you would have paid what you had to obtain one. So made 10 cents profit on the deal. The shopkeeper sold his merchandise for 40 cents but it only cost him 25 cents to obtain the Twinky. He made 15 cents profit on the deal. You wanted the snack more than you wanted the money. The shopkeeper wanted the money more than the snack. You both got what you valued more. You both profited by the transaction. That is why Capitalism works. Value (worth) is in the eye of the beholder. Remember: no transaction occurs unless both sides profit. Edit: once again I ask: if you give me a negative vote please explain with a comment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "41f63306bc3f9040845fb2bb465aa323",
"text": "\"Well, first off - yes, every year the younger generation grows up but remember that the older generation also dying off/leaving the market place. Also, what happens if the younger generation can't take up enough debt in order to pay for previous commitments? Secondly, I think you're confusing the money supply with actual production. The two are pretty much divorced from each other - money doesn't require a \"\"resource\"\" per se (at least, not since leaving the gold standard), it just requires that someone is able/willing to take on debt. For example, every time you take a loan out from the bank, you are effectively creating money. This is called bank credit and if you live in a country that uses fractional reserve banking then it makes up a very large part of your money supply (think like up to 95%). When bank's create money, they only create the principle amount (ie. the original loan amount) and not the interest amount as well. This means that someone else needs to take out a loan so that you can repay the amount in interest that you owe on your new loan. This doesn't normally affect you because there are lots of people taking out lots of loans all the time and money is circulating around in the economy. The problem is that eventually the system gets to a stage where people can't really take out loans any more, they just have too much debt, and so you end up with a liquidity crisis like in 2008. So what I was saying is that either I'm missing something pretty obvious and I've got this wrong or this is exactly how it works and economists like to just ignore it for the benefits that it offers...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ecc829e44d10e0c8b04e51d2ec5afa0",
"text": "I'd say that the assets are 'invested' in non-productive sectors of the economy such as the finance sector. Also in pure market speculation and in revolving corporate acquisitions which inflate the nominal money supply but don't increase either physical production or services delivered by one thimble or one minute.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb0c5c46cfaa2d01754b7181fb667bda",
"text": "\"Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Not normally.* The stock market as a whole, on average, increases in value over time. So if we make the claim that the market is a zero-sum game, and you only make money if other people lose money, that idea is not sustainable. There aren't that many people that would keep investing in something only to continue to lose money to the \"\"winners.\"\" The stock market, and the companies inside it, grow in value as the economy grows. And the economy grows as workers add value with their work. Here's an analogy: I can buy a tree seed for very little and plant it in the ground. If I do nothing more, it probably won't grow, and it will be worth nothing. However, by taking the time to water it, fertilize it, weed it, prune it, and harvest it, I can sell the produce for much more than I purchased that seed for. No one lost money when I sell it; I increased the value by adding my effort. If I sell that tree to a sawmill, they can cut the tree into usable lumber, and sell that lumber at a profit. They added their efforts and increased the value. A carpenter can increase the value even further by making something useful (a door, for example). A retail store can make that door more useful by transporting it to a location with a buyer, and a builder can make it even more useful by installing it on a house. No one lost any money in any of these transactions. They bought something valuable, and made it more valuable by adding their effort. Companies in the stock market grow in value the same way. A company will grow in value as its employees produce things. An investor provides capital that the company uses to be able to produce things**, and as the company grows, it increases in value. As the population increases and more workers and customers are born, and as more useful things are invented, the economy will continue to grow as a whole. * Certainly, it is possible, even common, to profit from someone else's loss. People lose money in the stock market all the time. But it doesn't have to be this way. The stock market goes up, on average, over the long term, and so long term investors can continue to make money in the market even without profiting from others' failures. ** An investor that purchases a share from another investor does not directly provide capital to the company. However, this second investor is rewarding the first investor who did provide capital to the company. This is the reason that the first investor purchased in the first place; without the second investor, the first would have had no reason to invest and provide the capital. Relating it to our tree analogy: Did the builder who installed the door help out the tree farmer? After all, the tree farmer already sold the tree to the sawmill and doesn't care what happens to it after that. However, if the builder had not needed a door, the sawmill would have had no reason to buy the tree.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b9b7a9442c2fc7ba68d446c2c09c18b",
"text": "\"You're talking about modern portfolio theory. The wiki article goes into the math. Here's the gist: Modern portfolio theory (MPT) is a theory of finance that attempts to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk, or equivalently minimize risk for a given level of expected return, by carefully choosing the proportions of various assets. At the most basic level, you either a) pick a level of risk (standard deviation of your whole portfolio) that you're ok with and find the maximum return you can achieve while not exceeding your risk level, or b) pick a level of expected return that you want and minimize risk (again, the standard deviation of your portfolio). You don't maximize both moments at once. The techniques behind actually solving them in all but the most trivial cases (portfolios of two or three assets are trivial cases) are basically quadratic programming because to be realistic, you might have a portfolio that a) doesn't allow short sales for all instruments, and/or b) has some securities that can't be held in fractional amounts (like ETF's or bonds). Then there isn't a closed form solution and you need computational techniques like mixed integer quadratic programming Plenty of firms and people use these techniques, even in their most basic form. Also your terms are a bit strange: It has correlation table p11, p12, ... pij, pnn for i and j running from 1 to n This is usually called the covariance matrix. I want to maximize 2 variables. Namely the expected return and the additive inverse of the standard deviation of the mixed investments. Like I said above you don't maximize two moments (return and inverse of risk). I realize that you're trying to minimize risk by maximizing \"\"negative risk\"\" so to speak but since risk and return are inherently a tradeoff you can't achieve the best of both worlds. Maybe I should point out that although the above sounds nice, and, theoretically, it's sound, as one of the comments points out, it's harder to apply in practice. For example it's easy to calculate a covariance matrix between the returns of two or more assets, but in the simplest case of modern portfolio theory, the assumption is that those covariances don't change over your time horizon. Also coming up with a realistic measure of your level of risk can be tricky. For example you may be ok with a standard deviation of 20% in the positive direction but only be ok with a standard deviation of 5% in the negative direction. Basically in your head, the distribution of returns you want probably has negative skewness: because on the whole you want more positive returns than negative returns. Like I said this can get complicated because then you start minimizing other forms of risk like value at risk, for example, and then modern portfolio theory doesn't necessarily give you closed form solutions anymore. Any actively managed fund that applies this in practice (since obviously a completely passive fund will just replicate the index and not try to minimize risk or anything like that) will probably be using something like the above, or at least something that's more complicated than the basic undergrad portfolio optimization that I talked about above. We'll quickly get beyond what I know at this rate, so maybe I should stop there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0a22865d3c92a8476bba9a888093840",
"text": "No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game. Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade. But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question. But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts. Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that. But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game. All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money. And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60581278a8695162450c7a88a00ff544",
"text": "While there certainly are many specific predictions that have proven completely wrong, the fundamental complaint is that the structure of our economy is unsustainable, with the prediction that this will eventually be revealed in a terrible way. Simply pointing out that the day of reckoning has been staved off for the immediate future does nothing to address or rebut the actual complaint. For example, we've been some 40 years now without a catastrophe attributable to global warming; should that be taken as indicative that the fundamental logic that predicts an eventual catastrophe is a load of bunk? Should the reasonable advance prediction requirement be harder for economics than for a hard science?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c578c93da22d50ffcb71f8e3c5627bdc",
"text": "\"> Value is entirely subjective to individuals. Nothing has \"\"intrinsic value\"\". Question: *Water, oxygen -- caveats to intrinsic value because they are that which is consumed by virtue of one's being alive and staying alive and are of limited supply?* Can we expand on \"\"value\"\" and how it operates on the barest of essentials to sustain life. To rephrase: [1] That the tripartite nature of the system of money--token (countable), vehicle (exchangeable), and repository (valuable)--depends on life existing ergo exist as conditions necessary for the creation of an economy but yet will be necessarily valued by the economy because of the projected increases in population, that is, future demand rising as function of the earthly supply means that the value of these goods can or cannot be projected and, more broadly, [2] how do economists evaluate the role of money in relation to timing, especially when it pertains to these unproduced or \"\"given\"\" yet essential goods and especially coupled with the knowledge that the population will continue to proliferate? Really, I'm not trying to undermine or debunk or be plain ridiculous; I'm curious as to how economic theory will (or has begun to) try to solve a \"\"singularity\"\" (threshold) problem that has yet to occur but no doubt will? Maybe it's an unfair question but even so, I'm sure someone on this thread might steer us towards a starting point. And I only ask because the economic breakdown by otherwiseyep and the discussion in the thread herein are, say, quite as substantial as they are clear.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a01f19253636d70f7448bdbe93a6ee4b",
"text": "Correct, kept orange demand in a microcosm to simplify. In the example, ~1 or 2 people would have been highly paid to build the machine, and the house would have created temp jobs for 2 or 3, or the money would have flowed to another tree owner and put into a bigger house. Point is the new inflow of money hasnt cycled through the economy fast enough to have an effect on consumptive demand. New money has a slower velocity with net effect on inflating asset prices up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fefb2bebc863d73f23a0dfeed3af1802",
"text": "Question: So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam, it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash. So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is. And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary? But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ec54a8c54ec30ce5f44f84bf3f18a2a",
"text": "none of which give a good return if the underlying economy is shit. the underlying economy will be shit if there hasn't been sufficient investment in more productive endeavors. if the underlying economy hasn't been sufficiently capitalized, that will present juicy returns to investors. it's a complete substance-less threat that if we fail to continue to coddle the rentiers, the economy will collapse because they'll do X with their money (X being something other than maximizing return)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f7eda312e6b4817d8cbfe06c82350e9",
"text": "\"These are meaningless statistics on multiple levels: 1. These value rises are as of 2016. This does not indicate any sort of significant trend in the rise in value of these bags over time. Did they lose 30% in 2015? Will value stagnate in 2018? 2. Even if a trend were established (it is not), it doesn't suggest any sort of future movements whatsoever, as past price movements don't ensure future movements. 3. The fundamental idea of \"\"investing\"\" in an accessory is questionable at best. While collectors will buy things like cars and art, and some will sit on them as stores of value, the economics of generating future returns on these items is not so logically sound as with stocks or bonds. These collectors items do not generate future value in a way that produces cash flows. An individual has to purely hope that somebody is willing to pay more for it in the future; the item does not fundamentally necessitate higher payment. This is the fundamental problem also with \"\"investing\"\" in commodities, and why a fundamentalist like Buffet would never do it. You bet on a commodity move (hopefully with information that you believe the market to be incorrectly synthesizing); you don't really \"\"invest\"\" in one. What makes a stock or bond (a company) different is that a company can be thought of as a black box that prints more money than it is fed. We feed money into a company as investors; the company uses that money to buy assets (e.g. Machines, inventory) at book value; the assets are made to work in tandem to produce goods/services that have more value than the sum of their parts; those goods/services are sold at the now higher value for a profit, and cash flows are returned to investors for an annual return on your investment (sometimes dividends aren't paid, but are reinvested with the expectation that reinvestment will lead to far larger dividends in the future). As such, the money investors feed into a company is turned into more money at the other end, and thus the company has produced more value than it's inputs alone. It has done so through the combination of resources (assets) in a way that makes their value greater than the sum of their parts. A company fundamentally is a logical investment (barring doubts about management's ability to create this value). It is like a black box that prints more money over time than you feed it. Purses do not; gold does not; oil does not. Don't invest in purses. Collect then if you love them, but don't bank on a payday.\"",
"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": "131aac61bf5067e8aaeace19aae82435",
"text": "Great question. Surprisingly, stock returns and GDP growth are mostly unrelated. In fact, they are slightly inversely correlated when you look across countries. Consider a firm that earns $100 on average per year with zero growth. If investors apply a 10% discount rate to this firm, the company will have a market value of $100/10% = $1,000. If it continues to earn $100 per year, it will produce 10% returns despite zero growth in earnings. You can see that realized returns are largely a function of the return investors demand for putting their money in risky assets. I say mostly unrelated because an increase in GDP growth may increase our firms earnings (though the relationship to earnings per share is muddied by new share issuances, buybacks, M&A, etc.). But you can see from the above example that returns can vastly exceed growth in perpetuity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1edf407c3b96a5274a68e07beae9b48",
"text": "If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d220e25bcd422dd93ff3c15fbc7c0cf7",
"text": "\"I try to think of it as \"\"present money\"\" and \"\"future money.\"\" Right now there's still plenty of present money(present wealth): crops are growing, there's plenty of rubber steel glass and such being processed, people still need toothpaste, etc. Stocks go way up when there's expectations in the marketplace for **future** earnings and production (profit). Debt is issued (read:money is created) when banks and lenders think production and profits will increase in the future. That future profit is what pays for the debt being issued (money being created) in the present. They essentially borrow from the future to create money today, in exchange for a chunk of the future profits. Right now there's so much doom and gloom that everybody thinks future production and future profits will just not be there, so nobody lends, nobody invests, and no money is created, and thus \"\"money\"\" just kinda disappears. At least that's how I think about it. Present wealth vs expectations of future wealth. I'm probably wrong though; this stuff gives me a headache.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b022cb9f5cefca22a4ec19030d0cb1d7
|
Closing a credit card with an annual fee without hurting credit score?
|
[
{
"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": "de2025b241f8fe7e14defc87ce78a3fd",
"text": "\"One key point that other answers haven't covered is that many credit cards have a provision where if you pay it off every month, you get a grace period on the interest. Interest doesn't accrue at all unless you rollover a non-zero balance. But if you do, you pay interest on the average balance, not the rolled-over balance, for the entire month. You have to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with your credit history? Are you trying to maximize your \"\"buying power\"\" (really, leverage)? Or are you trying to make sure that you get the best terms on a moderately sized loan (house mortgage, car note)? As JohnFx and losthorse already noted, it's in the banker's best interest to maximize the profit they make off of you. Of course, that is not in your best interest. Keeping a credit card balance from month to month definitely feeds the greedy nature of the financing beast. And makes them willing to take more risks, because the returns are also higher. But those returns cost you. If you are planning to get sensible loans in the future, that you can comfortably afford, you won't need a maxed credit score. You won't get the largest loan amounts, but because you are doing the sensible thing and making a large down payment, the risk is also very low and you'll find lenders willing to give you a low interest rate. Because even though the reward is lower than the compulsive purchaser who pays an order of magnitude more in financing fees, the return/risk ratio is still very favorable to the bank. Don't play the game that maximizes their return. That happens when you have a loan of maximum size, high interest rate, and struggle to make payments, end up missing a couple and paying late fees, or request forbearance which compounds the interest. Play to minimize risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9db5f2bb069cd14d9733940060d165ac",
"text": "\"The biggest (but still temporary) ding you'll see on your credit score from opening a new account is from the low average (and low minimum) account age. This will have a stronger effect than the hard pull of the credit report, which is still a factor (but not much of one if you only have 1-2 pulls in the past couple years). Having a lower average account age increases your risk to lenders. Your average will go up by one month per month, and each time you open an account it will suffer a drop proportional to the number of accounts you already had open before. So if you want to have a more \"\"solid\"\" credit score that stays strong in the face of new accounts in the future, it's better to open a few more accounts now (assuming you can ride out the temporary drop in score and aren't planning to go e.g. mortgage-shopping in the very near future). Having an additional line of credit will also likely cause your credit card utilization (total balance / total credit limit, expressed as a percentage) to decrease, which would tend to increase your credit score, counteracting the age factor, unless your utilization is already extremely low (which it probably is given your monthly account payoffs). There are various credit score simulators out there, from places that show you your credit score, and you can put in a hypothetical new card account to see the immediate likely impact for your particular situation. You identified other costs, such as risk of fraud and fees. You should check your statements once in a while even if you're not using the card, just to make sure no one else is. The bit of additional time required for this is a nonzero cost of having an open credit card account. So is the additional hassle of dealing with having the card stolen etc. if you carry it in your wallet and your wallet's stolen. If you have an account with zero activity for some number of years, the bank may close it automatically and that can reflect negatively on a credit report (as a bank closure of the account, the reason is often obscured). Check your terms and conditions and/or have some activity every so often to prevent this from happening. Some of the otherwise most attractive credit cards have monthly or annual fees, which will cost you, and you won't want to close those because it would then reduce your credit score (e.g. by reducing the total available credit and increasing your utilization percentage) - so the solution is don't apply for credit cards that have monthly/annual fees. There are plenty of good cards without those fees. With a credit score that high, you can get cards that have some very good benefits and rewards programs, as well as some with great introductory offers. Though I'm not familiar with details of Amazon's offer, $80 cash up-front with nothing else seems unlikely to be among your best options. I would think that for at least some of the fee-free cards available to you, the benefits exceed the costs, and you could \"\"cash in\"\" some of the benefits of your good credit record to get those benefits (i.e. this is one of those things you work hard to build good credit for), while also building your long-term reputation for repayment reliability. Also be aware as you shop around for cards that credit card companies pay fairly high referral fees to websites that send customers their way, so if you want you can think about who you're supporting when you click the link that takes you to an application you complete, and choose to support a site you think is providing a useful consumer-focused service. As factors affecting your credit score in addition to payment history (i.e. making regular payments as agreed on the new account will help you), Equifax lists:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d993d1e702f9e83f0ef2b0d52494616",
"text": "Your best option is just to pick a card that gives you the best (highest) rewards without charging you an annual or other fees (or the lowest annual or other fees). As you are looking to pay off the full balance by the due date you won't have to worry about the interest rate but just make sure you get an interest free period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fa2fdb9afac53bf36b34740cd97dec0",
"text": "\"The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to \"\"snowball\"\" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "312d32a49042514a7405bb87a35c97c5",
"text": "I disagree with the reply. Your both impressions are correct. - Do not close old credit cards because they keep your credit rating high (fico score) - Also low utilization that credit cards report to credit rating companies, improves your rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "469cdfdf93fe42ed1e5dee41831d0e41",
"text": "\"paying it off over time, which I know is the point of the card That may very well be the card issuer's goal, but it need not be yours. The benefits, as your question title seems to ask for - That said, use the card, but don't spend more than you have in your checking account to pay it when the bill comes. What you may want to hear - \"\"Charge the furniture. Pay it off over the next year, even at 20%/yr, the total interest on $2000 of furniture will only be $200, if you account for the declining balance. That's $4/week for a year of enjoying the furniture.\"\" You see, you can talk yourself into a bad decision. Instead, shop, but don't buy. Lay out the plan to buy each piece as you save up for it. Consider what would happen if you buy it all on the card and then have any unexpected expenses. It just gets piled on top of that and you're down a slippery slope.\"",
"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": "6d47872c305ac82a7baf1b8d3fd8b0b2",
"text": "The difference in interest is not a huge factor in your decision. It's about $2 per month. Personally I would go ahead and knock one out since it's one less to worry about. Then I would cancel the account and cut that card up so you are not tempted to use it again. To address the comments... Cutting up the card is NOT the ultimate solution. The solution is to stop borrowing money... Get on a strict budget, live on less than what you bring home, and throw everything you can at this high-interest debt. The destroying of the card is partly symbolic - it's a gesture to indicate that you're not going to use credit cards at all, or at least until they can be used responsibly, not paying a DIME of interest. It's analogous to a recovering alcoholic pouring out bottles of booze. Sure you can easily get more, but it's a commitment to changing your attitude and behavior. Yes leaving the card open will reduce utilization and improve (or not hurt) credit score - but if the goal is to stop borrowing money and pay off the other card, then once that is achieved, your credit score will be significantly improved, and the cancelling of the first card will not matter. The card (really both cards) should never, ever be used again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bee47d0f50380f7d37d3db993228a35",
"text": "There's no harm in keeping them open. Like you said, closing the lines will potentially hurt your utilization. The extent of that impact will depend on your particular situation. There are situations where closing a line will have no actual impact on your utilization. If you have 100k of open credit and a debt load of $2k, if you close a $10k line you won't really have an issue because your utilization is 2% and closing the line will take you to 2.2%.",
"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": "e05a4fe9b8fc3d695a78129c4107f782",
"text": "\"FICO 08, a newer fico formula that many lenders are simultaneously switching to now, ignores artificially lengthened credit history/score by piggybacking. So don't feel left out in that regard. Average age of accounts is affected when closed accounts fall off your credit report, which can take 7 years, not just by closing them. But I'm not familiar with the latest \"\"weightings\"\" of these things, so its tough to say how significant it will be when that happens. There are also newer FICO formulas, that may become relevant 7 years from now, so it is definitely something to be conscious of but they aren't immediately consequential, since you can do other things to improve your credit worthiness in the near term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba5b7274a04a768d3faedd8fe82590a8",
"text": "I've got a card that I've had for about 25 years now. The only time they charged me interest I showed it was their goof (the automatic payment failed because of their mistake) and they haven't cancelled it. No annual fee, a bit of cash back. The only cards I've ever had an issuer close are ones I didn't use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "886e255b1882e28b54fd09c9515931c6",
"text": "You can always cancel the card and close this account. Consider switching to a bank that has better customer service. Closing accounts typically gets a lot of attention and it's fairly likely they will contact you to reconsider and so you'll have a chance to air your grievances. Whether they have anything to offer that would cause you to stay is for you to decide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e305ff507936645db116a265d935c3f",
"text": "See if the bank has other credit cards they offer. Many banks have multiple ones: some cards have great benefits, others do not; some cards have high rates, some do not; some cards are secured, some do not. If they have a card that you like ask them to switch you to the card you want. They should be able to do so very easily. Your card number will change, but they will treat it is a replacement so that your credit score will not take a hit during the switch. It may be possible to get them to waive the annual fee, but most won't because each card type they offer are separate products so they only allow you to pick one of their options. If they don't have a card to your liking apply for a card from anther bank that has the benefits and annual fees (zero) that you are looking for. It may be that the new card will start with a lower limit, but it will increase over time, especially as you shift more of your business to the new card. When you cancel the old card before the next year rolls around you will take a small short hit to your credit score, but that is ok.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8a0ea3b3dde6eb528f6510f15113ddb",
"text": "\"There are two factors in your credit score that may be affected. The first is payment history. Lenders like to see that you pay your bills, which is the most straightforward part of credit scores IMO. If you've actually been paying your bills on time, though, then this should still be fine. The second factor is the average age of your open accounts. Longer is considered better here because it means you have a history of paying your bills, and you aren't applying for a bunch of credit recently (in which case you may be taking on too much and will have difficulties paying them). If this card is closed, then it will no longer count for this calculation. If you don't have any other open credit accounts, then that means as soon as you open another one, your average age will be one day, and it will take a long time to get it to \"\"good\"\" levels; if you have other matured accounts, then those will balance out any new accounts so you don't get hit as much. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why it's good to get cards without yearly fees, because you can keep them open for a long time even if you switch to using a different card primarily.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
910ce4550d9306e3252cd62c569e42b2
|
What is the best way to save money from inflation and currency devaluation?
|
[
{
"docid": "695a4021c1cf2de1f21f58272eb7eafc",
"text": "Devaluation is a relative term, so if you want to protect yourself against devaluation of your currency against dollars - just buy dollars. Inflation is something you cannot protect yourself against because it is something that describes the purchasing power of the money. You will still need to purchase, and usually with money. A side effect of inflation is usually devaluation against other currencies. So one of the ways to deal with inflation is not to keep the money in your currency over time, and only convert from a more stable currency when you need to make purchases. Another way is to invest in something tangible that can easily be sold (for example, jewelery and precious metals, but it has other risks). Re whats legal and illegal in your country - we don't really know because you didn't tell what country that is to begin with, but the usual channels like travelers' checks or bank transfer should work. Carrying large amounts of cash are usually either illegal or strictly regulated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a82d6bb88b2c6a69e9ca89ed9c8692a7",
"text": "\"Generally speaking, so-called \"\"hard assets\"\" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a \"\"harder\"\" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9c84d0cd8ba4ce0d23663e0591844911",
"text": "Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c8efa7e30d1a1a11545c2646d55c6bd",
"text": "\"If you are concerned about inflation, here are a couple of \"\"TIPS\"\". You can buy a mutual fund or ETF which adjusts for inflation. Here is one link which you may find useful: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-smarter-mutual-fund-investor/2010/12/02/etf-basics-how-to-fight-inflation\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f49d5510429dbbfe5c6ef3a85a18ec30",
"text": "I am not preparing for a sudden, major, catastrophic collapse in the US dollar. I am, however, preparing for a significant but gradual erosion of its value through inflation over the space of several years to a decade. To that end, I've invested most of my assets in the stock market (roughly 80%) through major world index funds, and limited my bond exposure (maintaining a small stake in commodity ETFs: gold, silver, platinum and palladium) due to both inflation risk and the inevitability of rising interest rates. I don't think most companies mind overmuch if the dollar falls gradually, as the bulk of their value is in their continuing income stream, not in a dollar-denominated bank account. I also try to keep what I can in tax-deferred accounts: If, after several years, your stocks were up 100% but inflation reduced the dollar's value by 50%, you're still stuck paying taxes on the entire gain, even though it was meaningless. I'm also anticipating tax hikes at some point (though not as a result of the dollar falling). It helps that I'm young and can stand a lot of investment risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "941015e84438966b1e5c5e4d8195dfc8",
"text": "\"For diversification against local currency's inflation, you have fundamentally 3 options: Depending on how sure you are on your prediction, and what amount of money you're willing to bet to \"\"short the country\"\", you might also consider a mix of approaches from the above. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50e236ec0f96a0593fda16098b715f5e",
"text": "Public debt and risk of currency devaluation are two very, very different things. Until the BRICS are able to buy commodities on a significant scale using a market basket of their own currencies, the USD will remain one of the (if not the) safest currencies in the world.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feac8aba143a4a01affea2a93292e1ae",
"text": "\"If you live and work in the euro-zone, then even after a \"\"crash\"\" all of your income and most of your expenses will still be in euros. The only portion of your worth you need to worry about protecting is the portion you intend to spend on goods from outside the euro-zone (i.e. imports). In that case, you may want to consider parking some of your money in short-term government bonds issued by other countries, such as the UK, Switzerland, and USA (or wherever else your favorite goods tend to come from). If the euro actually \"\"massively devalues\"\" (an extremely unlikely scenario), then you can expect foreign goods to cost a lot more than they do now. Inflation might also pick up, so you might also want to purchase some OATis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71973b471b6779c847e78549ccae7fb6",
"text": "Rather than screwing around with foreign currencies, hop over to Germany and open an account at the first branch of Deutsche or Commerzbank you see. If the euro really does disintegrate, you want to have your money in the strongest country of the lot. Edit: and what I meant to say is that if the euro implodes, you'll end up with deutschmarks, which, unlike the new IEP, will *not* need to devalue. (And in the meantime, you've still got euros, so you have no FX risk.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e6f21f589db948c8ece7bcab290e55",
"text": "\"(Real) interest rates are so low because governments want people to use their money to improve the economy by spending or investing rather than saving. Their idea is that by consuming or investing you will help to create jobs that will employ people who will spend or invest their pay, and so on. If you want to keep this money for the future you don't want to spend it and interest rates make saving unrewarding therefore you ought to invest. That was the why, now the how. Inflation protected securities, mentioned in another answer, are the least risk way to do this. These are government guaranteed and very unlikely to default. On the other hand deflation will cause bigger problems for you and the returns will be pitiful compared with historical interest rates. So what else can be done? Investing in companies is one way of improving returns but risk starts to increase so you need to decide what risk profile is right for you. Investing in companies does not mean having to put money into the stock market either directly or indirectly (through funds) although index tracker funds have good returns and low risk. The corporate bond market is lower risk for a lesser reward than the stock market but with better returns than current interest rates. Investment grade bonds are very low risk, especially in the current economic climate and there are exchange traded funds (ETFs) to diversify more risk away. Since you don't mention willingness to take risk or the kind of amounts that you have to save I've tried to give some low risk options beyond \"\"buy something inflation linked\"\" but you need to take care to understand the risks of any product you buy or use, be they a bank account, TIPS, bond investments or whatever. Avoid anything that you don't fully understand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eefc2de9693868d1aea53b7a9f8281ef",
"text": "You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0848988ee6bf5d902b7090dcbc46de00",
"text": "The location does matter in the case where you introduce currency risk; by leaving you US savings in USD, you're basically working on the assumption that the USD will not lose value against the EUR - if it does and you live in the EUR-zone, you've just misplaced some of your capital. Of course that also works the other way around if the USD appreciates against the EUR, you gained some money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "69ac9022804733592e6acd79726b8624",
"text": "You are losing something - interest on your deposit. That money you are giving to the bank is not earning interest so you are losing money considering inflation is eating into it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0339acde124bc7d1ff0f4bbec49f66dc",
"text": "\"To begin with, bear in mind that over the time horizon you are talking about, the practical impact of inflation will be quite limited. Inflation for 2017 is forecast at 2.7%, and since you are talking about a bit less than all of 2017, and on average you'll be withdrawing your money halfway through, the overall impact will be <1.3% of your savings. You should consider whether the effort and risk involved in an alternative is worth a few hundred pounds. If you still want to beat inflation, the best suggestion I have is to look at peer-to-peer lending. That comes with some risk, but I think over the course of 1 year, it's quite limited. For example, Zopa is currently offering 3.1% on their \"\"Access\"\" product, and RateSetter are offering 2.9% on the \"\"Everyday\"\" product. Both of these are advertised as instant access, albeit with some caveats. These aren't FSCS-guaranteed bank deposits, and they do come with some risk. Firstly, although both RateSetter and Zopa have a significant level of provision against bad debt, it's always possible that this won't be enough and you'll lose some of your money. I think this is quite unlikely over a one-year time horizon, as there's no sign of trouble yet. Secondly, there's \"\"liquidity\"\" risk. Although the products are advertised as instant access, they are actually backed by longer-duration loans made to people who want to borrow money. For you to be able to cash out, someone else has to be there ready to take your place. Again, this is very likely to be possible in practice, but there's no absolute guarantee.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51876fb7fa8f2f1b1c5fc654650a5ef4",
"text": "The other obvious suggestion I guess is to buy cheap stocks and bonds (maybe in a dollar denominated fund). If the US dollar rises you'd then get both the fund's US gains plus currency gains. However, no guarantee the US dollar will rise or when. Perhaps a more prudent approach is to simply diversify. Buy both domestic and foreign stocks and bonds. Rebalance regularly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97aa231a19798daa12a7ee08fa689c13",
"text": "\"Suppose you have $100 today and suppose that hamburgers cost $5. If you are holding $100, you could buy 20 hamburgers at $5 each. Now suppose you take that $100 and stuff it under your mattress for 24 years. When you pull out your money, you still have $100, but it turns out hamburgers now cost $10. The increase from $5 to $10 is inflation. Your savings of $100 was \"\"eroded\"\" by half even though before and after you had $100 and now you can only buy 10 hamburgers instead of 20 hamburgers. Suppose inflation is 3%. That means that if you earn 3% return on your investments, you'll stay even with inflation (If you can buy 20 hamburgers today, then at any point you can still buy 20 hamburgers). If you want your money to grow in a real, tangible way you'll want to seek returns that beat the rate of inflation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4ce84a758c46588ff2ce9231ff3460f1
|
How can I buy government bonds from foreign countries?
|
[
{
"docid": "3a1962707304e58f79eb56f2e61454ad",
"text": "Significantly less effort to buy into any of several international bond index funds. Off the top of my head, VTIBX.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2933c48c4708a2ad6e4a280295b127d2",
"text": "Selftrade does list them. Not sure if you'll be able to sign up from the US though, particularly given the FATCA issues.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf3a242bd5867bd1ea8d2adf71e360c9",
"text": "It's called carry-trade. They can borrow from governments that have 0% int rates, exchange it for dollars, and then buy u.s. treasuries. Japan would never ever raise their interest rates as their economy runs on keynesian fumes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f200ee7a5a6d36978324a23b4718750",
"text": "You cannot do this as per the reasons mentioned by others above, mainly foreign banks cannot hold mortgages over properties in other countries. If this was possible to do, don't you think many others would be applying overseas for mortgages and loans. And even if it was possible the overseas bank would give you a comparative rate to compete with the rates already offered in Australia (to compensate with the extra risks). If you cannot afford to purchase a property at record low rates of below 5% in Australia, then you may want to re-think your strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1109a029b9265828ac0b300a07184763",
"text": "\"This is \"\"incentive financing\"\". Simply put, the car company isn't in the business of making money by buying government bonds. They're in the business of making money by selling cars. If you are \"\"qualified\"\" from a credit standpoint, and want to buy a $20k car on any given Sunday, you'll typically be offered a loan of between 6% and 9%. Let's say this loan is for three years and you can offer $4000 down payment and/or trade. The required monthly payment on the remaining $16k at the high end of 9% is $508.80, which over 3 years means you'll pay $2,316.64 in interest. Now, that may sound like a good chunk of change, and for the ordinary individual, it is, possibly enough that you decide not to buy today. Now, let's say, all other things being equal, that the company is offering 0.9% incentive financing. Same price, same down payment, same loan term. Your payments over 3 years decrease to $450.64, and over the same loan term you would only pay $222.97 in interest. You save over $2,093.67 in interest over three years, which for you is again a decent chunk of change. Theoretically, the car company's losing that same $2,093.67 in interest by offering this deal, and depending on how it's getting the money it lends you (most financial companies are middlemen, getting money from bond-buying investors who expect a rate of return), that could be a real loss and not just opportunity cost. But, that incentive got you to walk in their door, and not their competitor's. It helped convince you to buy the $20,000 car. The gross margin on that car (price minus direct costs) is typically 20% for the dealer, plus another 20% for the manufacturer, so by giving up the $2,000 on the financing side, the dealer and manufacturer just earned themselves 4 times that much. On top of that, by buying that car, you're committing to buy the parts for the car, a side business with even higher margins, of which the car company gets a pretty big chunk. You may even be required to use dealer service while the car's under warranty in order to keep the warranty valid, another cha-ching. When you get right down to it, the loss from the incentive financing is drowned in the gross profits they make from selling the car to you. Now, in reality, it's a fine balance. The percentages I mentioned are gross margins (EBITDASG&A - Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization, Sales, General and Administrative costs; basically, just revenue minus direct cost of goods sold). Add in all these side costs and you get a net margin of only about 3.5% of revenue, so your $20k car purchase may only make the car company's stakeholders $700 on the sale, plus slightly higher net margins on parts and service over the life of the car. Because incentive financing is typically only offered through the company's own financing subsidiary, the loss isn't in the form of a cost paid, but simply a revenue not realized, but it can still move a car company from net positive to net negative earnings if the program is too successful. This is why not everyone does it, and not all at the same time; if you're selling enough cars without it, why give away money? Typically, these incentives are offered for two reasons; to clear out old cars or excess inventory, or to maintain ground against a competitor's stronger sales numbers. Keeping cars on a lot ready to sell is expensive, and so is not having your brand driving around on the street turning heads and imprinting their name on the minds of potential customers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "478cdde040cedfb6e01af7f6e8296744",
"text": "I looked into the investopedia one (all their videos are mazing), but that detail just was not clear to me, it also makes be wonder, if a country issues bonds to finance itself, what happens at maturity when literally millions of them need to be paid? The income needs to have grown to that level or it defaults? Wouldn't all the countries default if that was the case, or are bonds being issued to being able to pay maturity of older bonds already? (I'm freaking myself out by realizing this)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b1a8a2a609b0f853660a8786305f123",
"text": "just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c0c5e7650ac2b723b638a50e5bc0f53",
"text": "There are lots of reasons for the differences in price. Can you go to (a) bank, (b) forex bureau and (c) central bank and post back both bid and offer prices at a given time so we can consider the spread? What you've said above for (a) and (b) are presumably USDGHS offer prices, because they are higher than the (c) central bank price. If a bank or bureau bid price was higher than the central bank offer price then you could buy GHS from the central bank and then sell them to a bureau for a higher price, an almost no risk arbitrage, other than the armoured car to deliver the funds from central bank to bureau. What you've posted is: (a) a bank will sell you 1 USD for 3.4 GHS (b) a bureau will sell you 1 USD for 3.7 GHS (c) we can see the bid/offer for central bank is 3.1949/3.1975 which means the central bank, if you have an account, will sell you 1 USD for 3.1975 GHS. You clearly want to buy USD from the central bank, then the bank, then the bureau. Anyway, the reason for these differences is all to do with liquidity conditions in the local areas, the customer types, and the frequency of orders versus inventory... Think about it. The central bank has the most frequency of orders and the biggest customers so it offers the lower price, then the bank, and then the bureau. I think the bureau is the worst price there... You have to explain further :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc00e61174d102fff008e8fa1aad7fa",
"text": "\"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The \"\"return of capital, not return on capital\"\" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cbde01cf5e466b8f1a6ee6fca714dfb",
"text": "US government bonds are where money goes when the markets are turbulent and investors are fleeing from risk, and that applies even if the risk is a downgrade of the US credit rating, because there's simply nowhere else to put your money if you're in search of safety. Most AAA-rated governments have good credit ratings because they don't borrow much money (and most of them also have fairly small economies compared with the US), meaning that there's poor liquidity in their scarce bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e03ffaa92d15930d884ee78fd0f02558",
"text": "Those are the expected yields; they are not guaranteed. This was actually the bread and butter of Graham Newman, mispriced bonds. Graham's writings in the Buffett recommended edition of Securities Analysis are invaluable to bond valuation. The highest yielder now is a private subsidiary of Société Générale. A lack of financial statements availability and the fact that this is the US derivatives markets subsidiary are probably the cause of the higher rates. The cost is about a million USD to buy them. The rest will be similar cases, but Graham's approach could find a diamond; however, bonds are big ticket items, so one should expect to pay many hundreds of thousands of USD per trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77b8fe7de6943da22f1d55ffe51f4823",
"text": "It's more complicated than that. Governments raise money in a number of ways. First, they tax economic activity within their borders and for connected companies and individuals. Then, some governments have actual revenues from state-owned enterprises (licences, patents, courts, business revenues, and so on). Whatever shortage arises between state expenditure and this income is the deficit which is usually financed through debt. Government usually issues a bond (Wikipedia for a list of government bonds) of various types, some with extremely lengthy maturation dates. These bonds can be purchased both locally and by foreign investment funds. The nature of who buys is important. From the Wikipedia link you'll see that most government debt is very highly rated based on the ability of the state to simply raise taxes in order to fund redemption. Pension funds are legally bound to only invest in highly-rated investment classes and the bulk of bonds may be purchased to support local pensioners. A state that defaults on debt will first hit its own most vulnerable citizens. In addition, the fall-out will result in a savage cut in ratings. Countries like Argentina and Zimbabwe, which have both refused to repay their debts even to the IMF, are currently unable to raise investment at all. This has a tremendous impact on local economic development. So, default is out of the question without severe penalties. The second part of your question is about paying down the debt. As debts increase, more and more of the revenue that a country does earn is spent on servicing debt repayments. Sometimes bonds are issued merely to refinance old debt. A country that spends too much on refinancing debt is no different from an individual. Less and less money is available to do other things. In conclusion: governments can neither default nor binge-borrow unless they wish to severely limit economic opportunities for their citizens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f8851d458841a55b140337c80cb1702",
"text": "\"The first thing that it is important to note here is that the examples you have given are not individual bond prices. This is what is called the \"\"generic\"\" bond price data, in effect a idealised bond with the indicated maturity period. You can see individual bond prices on the UK Debt Management Office website. The meaning of the various attributes (price, yield, coupon) remains the same, but there may be no such bond to trade in the market. So let's take the example of an actual UK Gilt, say the \"\"4.25% Treasury Gilt 2019\"\". The UK Debt Management Office currently lists this bond as having a maturity date of 07-Mar-2019 and a price of GBP 116.27. This means that you will pay 116.27 to purchase a bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00. Here, the \"\"nominal price\"\" is the price that HM Treasury will buy the bond back on the maturity date. Note that the title of the bond indicates a \"\"nominal\"\" yield of 4.25%. This is called the coupon, so here the coupon is 4.25%. In other words, the treasury will pay GBP 4.25 annually for each bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00. Since you will now be paying a price of GBP 116.27 to purchase this bond in the market today, this means that you will be paying 116.27 to earn the nominal annual interest of 4.25. This equates to a 3.656% yield, where 3.656% = 4.25/116.27. It is very important to understand that the yield is not the whole story. In particular, since the bond has a nominal value of GBP100, this means that as the maturity date approaches the market price of the bond will approach the nominal price of 100. In this case, this means that you will witness a loss of capital over the period that you hold the bond. If you hold the bond until maturity, then you will lose GBP 16.27 for each nominal GBP100 bond you hold. When this capital loss is netted off the interest recieved, you get what is called the gross redemption yield. In this case, the gross redemption yield is given as approximately 0.75% per annum. NB. The data table you have included clearly has errors in the pricing of the 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month generics.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dda09c7a210d3a3c37bd61c5791be5c3",
"text": "First off, I do not recommend buying individual bonds yourself. Instead buy a bond fund (ETF or mutual fund). That way you get some diversification. The risk-reward ratio will be evident in what you find to invest in. Junk bond funds pay the highest rates. Treasury bond funds pay the lowest. So you have to ask yourself how comfortable are you with risk? Buy the funds that pay the highest rate but still let you sleep at night.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5983c003ade5140773b9f348f02fc90",
"text": "I'll get to my answer in a moment, but first need to put focus on the two key components of bond prices: interest rates and credit risk. Suppose that the 10-year treasury has a coupon of 2% per year (it would be paid as 1% twice per year, in reality). If you own one contract of the bond which we suppose has a so-called face-value of $100, then this contract will over the ten years pay you a total of $20 in coupons, then $100 at redemption. So $120 in total. Would you therefore buy this 10-year treasury bond for $120, or more, or less? Well, if there were bank accounts around which were offering you an interest rate of 2% per year fixed for the next 10 years, then you could alternatively generate $120 from just $100 deposited now (if we assume that the interest paid is not put back in the account to earn 2% per year). Consequently, a price of $100 for the treasury would seem about right. However, suppose that you are not very confident that the banks that offer these accounts will even be around in 10 years time, maybe they will fail before that and you'll never get your money back. Then you might say to yourself that the above calculation is mathematically right, but not really a full representation of the different risks. And you conclude that maybe treasuries should be a bit more expensive, because they offer better credit risk than bank deposits. All of this just to show that the price of bonds is a comparative valuation of rates and credit: you need to know the general level of interest rates available in other investment products (even in stocks, I'd say), you need to have a feel for how much credit risk there is in the different investment products. Most people think that 'normally' interest rates are positive, because we are so familiar with the basic principle that: if I lend you some money then you need to pay me some interest. But in a world where everyone is worried about bank failures, people might prefer to effectively 'deposit' our savings with the US treasury (by buying their bonds) than to deposit their savings in the local bank. The US treasury will see this extra demand and put up the prices of their bonds (they are not stupid at the US treasury, you know!), so maybe the price of the 10-year treasury will go above $120. It could, right? In this scenario, the implied yield on the 10-year treasury is negative. There you go, yields have gone negative because of credit risk concerns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1f834db0aa4222f7fcf6262e15b5ace",
"text": "If it had immediate purchase power of $525, can I use that to buy more $500 bonds over and over again? Your idea is flawed. You can't just make money out of thin air, unless you are running a Ponzi scheme.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4463687bc556a61ae4d03403b690db57
|
401k compound interest vs other compound interest
|
[
{
"docid": "1b53879e7b20f0f8145042b709438017",
"text": "A 401K (pre-tax or Roth) account or an IRA (Deductible or Roth) account is a retirement account. Which means you delay paying taxes now on your deposits, or you avoid paying taxes on your earnings later. But a retirement account doesn't perform any different than any other account year-to-year. Being a retirement account doesn't dictate a type of investment. You can invest in a certificate of deposit that is guaranteed to make x% this year; or you can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds that infest in stocks or bonds. Those stocks and bonds can be growth focused, or income focused; they can be from large companies or small companies; US companies or international companies. Or whatever mix you want. The graph in your question shows that if you invest early in your adulthood, and keep investing, and you make the average return you should make more money than starting later. But a couple of notes: So to your exact questions: An S&P 500 investment should perform exactly the same this year if it is in a 401K, IRA, or taxable account With a few exceptions: Yes any investment can lose money. The last 6 months have been volatile and the last month and a half especially so. A retirement account isn't any different. An investment in mutual fund X in a retirement account is just as depressed a one in the same fund but from a taxable account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cd9ae8e51ed2c466a0d0ab339026510",
"text": "Growth in a 401k dodges taxes, which means more of the gains get reinvested. Effectively, it's a boosted return rate. Like any investment, a 401k can lose value. During the period before retirement, lower stock and bond prices actually help you buy more shares than you could if prices were high, so the real question is what the funds are doing at the time you start pulling money back out. That concern is why investors generally, not just 401k investors, should change their investment mix over time, to balance oossible risk against time to recover and possible reward. And if your employer matches 401k contributions to any degree, that too improves your effective gains and buffers you against some of ghe risk. Hence the general advice that if you don't fund your 401k at least enough to max out the company match, you're leaving free money on the table.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f2f33d9947c555e7176a748dd3f6dff",
"text": "1a. It isn't. Compound interest is compound interest. It works no different within a 401(k). 1b. Yes. 401(k)'s are made up of the same underlying assets that you could invest in with a regular brokerage account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "32d5026cb2f799fe29a026532ca372ac",
"text": "It would be bad tax-wise, because gains in the investment outside the 401k are taxed; whereas gains in the investment inside the 401k are not taxed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d97b61377d579ffc5a6e1e2422f53aa",
"text": "The math works out so that the 401k is still a better deal in the long term over a taxable account because of the tax-deferred growth. Let's assume you invest in an S&P 500 index fund in either a taxable investment account or a 401k and the difference in fees is .5%. I used an online calculator and a hypothetical 1k/year investment over 30 years with 4.5% tax-deferred growth vs 5% taxable and a 25% tax bracket. After 30 years the tax-deferred 401k account will have $67k and the taxable account will have $58k. The math isn't perfect -- I'm sure I'm missing some intricacies with dividends/capital gains distributions and that you'll then pay income tax on the 401k upon retirement as you drawn down, but it still seems pretty clear that the 401k will win in the long run, especially if you invest more than the 1k/year used in my example. But yeah, .84% expenses on an index fund is robbery. Can you bring that to the attention of the HR department? Maybe they'll want to look for a lower-fee provider and it's in their best interest too, if they also participate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1930c68a28a19e4e2979740472fa1ec1",
"text": "This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d138445f43465adaec68e65a19c491f3",
"text": "There's a cool calculator at Money Chimp that lets you plug in a start and end year and see what the compound annual growth rate of the S&P 500. The default date range of 1871 through 2010 gives a rate of 8.92% for example. Something you need to take into account when comparing returns to a whole life policy is what happens to the cash value in your policy when you die. Many of these policies are written so that your beneficiaries only get the face value of the policy, and the insurance company keeps the cash value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4049129d009f1eb1582c6b32f2e0fb45",
"text": "\"If you mean, If I invest, say, $1000 in a stock that is growing at 5% per year, versus investing $1000 in an account that pays compound interest of 5% per year, how does the amount I have after 5 years compare? Then the answer is, They would be exactly the same. As Kent Anderson says, \"\"compound interest\"\" simply means that as you accumulate interest, that for the next interest cycle, the amount that they pay interest on is based on the previous cycle balance PLUS the interest. For example, suppose you invest $1000 at 5% interest compounded annually. After one year you get 5% of $1000, or $50. You now have $1050. At the end of the second year, you get 5% of $1050 -- not 5% of the original $1000 -- or $52.50, so you now have $1102.50. Etc. Stocks tend to grow in the same way. But here's the big difference: If you get an interest-bearing account, the bank or investment company guarantees the interest rate. Unless they go bankrupt, you WILL get that percentage interest. But there is absolutely no guarantee when you buy stock. It may go up 5% this year, up 4% next year, and down 3% the year after. The company makes no promises about how much growth the stock will show. It may show a loss. It all depends on how well the company does.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1170a7a6127cb2bff5f0784dc298245",
"text": "\"This is the infographic from the Fidelity. It exemplifies what's wrong with the financial industry, and the sad state of innumeracy that we are in. To be clear, Fidelity treats the 401(k) correctly, although the assumption that the withdrawals are all at a marginal 28% is a poor one. The Roth side, they assume the $5000 goes in at a zero tax rate. This is nonsense, as Elaine can't deposit $5000, she has to pay tax first, no? She'd deposit $3600, and would have the identical $27,404 at withdrawal time. And this is pure nonsense - \"\"Let’s look at the numbers another way. Tom takes the $1,400 he saved in taxes from his $5,000 pretax contributions, and invests that money in a taxable brokerage account. That could boost his total at age 75 to $35,445.\"\" The $1400 saved is in his 401(k) already, there's no extra $1400. $5000 went in pretax. Let me go one more step, and explain what I think Joe meant in his comment below - tax table first - At retirement, say a couple has exactly $168,850 of income. With the $20K in standard deduction and exemptions, they are right at the top of the 25% bracket. And have a federal tax bill of $28,925. Overall, an effective rate of 17%. Of course this is a blend from 0%-25%, and I maintain that if some money could have gone in post tax while in the 10%/15% brackets, that would be great, but in the end, if it all skims off at 25%, and comes out at an effective 17%, that's not too bad. The article is incorrect. Misleading. And offends any of us that have any respect for numbers. And the fact that the article claim that \"\"87% found this helpful\"\" just makes me... sad. I've said it elsewhere, and will repeat, there are not just two points in time. The ability to convert Traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k), and if in IRAs, not just convert, but also recharacterize, opens up other possibilities. It's worth a bit of attention and ongoing paperwork to minimize your lifetime tax bill. Time makes no difference. There is no \"\"crossover point\"\" as with other financial decisions. For this illustration, the results are identical regardless of time. By the way, in today's dollars, it would take $4M pretax to produce an annual withdrawal of $160K. This number is about top 2-3%. The 90%ers need not worry about saving their way to a higher tax bracket.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d38a23c226e9e78cd84d3ff266e896a6",
"text": "\"Early this year I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed? I described the data from a 401(k) expense survey and the punchline was that the average large retirement plan (over 1000 participants) expense was 1.08%, and for smaller plans it rose to 1.24%. As I commented below, if one's goal is to make deposits with income that avoid a tax of 25%, and hope to withdraw it at retirement at 15%, it doesn't take long for a 1% fee to completely negate the benefit of pretax savings. These numbers are averages, in the same article, I mention (ok, I brag) that my company plan has an S&P fund that costs .05%. That's 1% over 20 years. The sound bite of \"\"deposit to the match\"\" needs to be followed by \"\"depending on the choice of investments and their expenses\"\" within the 401(k). Every answer here has added excellent points, fennec's last sentence shouldn't be ignored, there's a phaseout for IRA deductibility, and another for Roth eligibility. For Married filing joint, IRA deduction starts to be lost at $92K, and Roth deposit disallowed at $173K. This adds a bit to the complexity of the decision, but doesn't change the implication of the 1%+ 401(k) fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2808976f5888136ecafa9c654f02a222",
"text": "\"Often in life we have to choose the lesser of evils. Whole Life as an investment vs. Term Life and invest the difference is one of these times. I assume the following statement is true. \"\"The commissions on whole life are sick. The selling agent gets upward of 90% of your first year's premium.\"\" But how does that compare to investing in mutual funds (as one alternative)? Well according to Vanguard the average mutual fund keeps 60% of the total returns over the average investors lifetime. And of course income taxes (on withdrawal) consume another 30% (or more) of the dollars you withdraw (from a tax deferred retirement plan like a 401k.) http://www.fool.com/School/MutualFunds/Performance/Record.htm So you have to pick your poison and make the choice that fits your view of the future. Personally I don't believe my cost of living in retirement will be radically lower than my cost of living while working. Additionally I believe income tax rates will be higher in the future than the in the present and so deferring taxes (like a 401k) doesn't make sense to me. (In 1980 a 401k made sense when the average 401k participant was paying over 50% in federal income tax and also got a pension.) So paying 90% of my first year's premium rather than 60% of my gains over my lifetime seems acceptable. And borrowing tax free against my life insurance once retired (with no intention of paying it back) will, I believe, provide greater income than a 401k could.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "407d5b6f33456c1d2b446b27364e5406",
"text": "First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make. You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account. So your question really has two different parts: Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment. The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty. These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement. Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either. You can put money in and take money out whenever you like. However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on. Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest. A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments. If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments. Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest. The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies. Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close. However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term. In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%. At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments. The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks. There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685042ecaae0c90f90b6d0ed29fe6f61",
"text": "\"401k plans are required to not discriminate against the non-HCE participants, and one way they achieve this is by limiting the percentage of wages that HCEs can contribute to the plan to the average annual percentage contribution by the non-HCE participants or 3% whichever is higher. If most non-HCE employees contribute only 3% (usually to capture the employer match but no more), then the HCEs are stuck with 3%. However, be aware that in companies that award year-end bonuses to all employees, many non-HCEs contribute part of their bonuses to their 401k plans, and so the average annual percentage can rise above 3% at the end of year. Some payroll offices have been known to ask all those who have not already maxed out their 401k contribution for the year (yes, it is possible to do this even while contributing only 3% if you are not just a HCE but a VHCE) whether they want to contribute the usual 3%, or a higher percentage, or to contribute the maximum possible under the nondiscrimination rules. So, you might be able to contribute more than 3% if the non-HCEs put in more money at the end of the year. With regard to NQSPs, you pretty much have their properties pegged correctly. That money is considered to be deferred compensation and so you pay taxes on it only when you receive it upon leaving employment. The company also gets to deduct it as a business expense when the money is paid out, and as you said, it is not money that is segregated as a 401k plan is. On the other hand, you have earned the money already: it is just that the company is \"\"holding\"\" it for you. Is it paying you interest on the money (accumulating in the NQSP, not paid out in cash or taxable income to you)? Would it be better to just take the money right now, pay taxes on it, and invest it yourself? Some deferred compensation plans work as follows. The deferred compensation is given to you as a loan in the year it is earned, and you pay only interest on the principal each year. Since the money is a loan, there is no tax of any kind due on the money when you receive it. Now you can invest the proceeds of this loan and hopefully earn enough to cover the interest payments due. (The interest you pay is deductible on Schedule A as an Investment Interest Expense). When employment ceases, you repay the loan to the company as a lump sum or in five or ten annual installments, whatever was agreed to, while the company pays you your deferred compensation less taxes withheld. The net effect is that you pay the company the taxes due on the money, and the company sends this on to the various tax authorities as money withheld from wages paid. The advantage is that you do not need to worry about what happens to your money if the company fails; you have received it up front. Yes, you have to pay the loan principal to the company but the company also owes you exactly that much money as unpaid wages. In the best of all worlds, things will proceed smoothly, but if not, it is better to be in this Mexican standoff rather than standing in line in bankruptcy court and hoping to get pennies on the dollar for your work.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "967939d545acf068b4f7f063cfff75ee",
"text": "It appears from your description that the 401k account has the automatic dividend reinvestment policy, and that the end result is exactly the same as the external account with the same policy. I.e.: no difference, the dividend affected the 401k account in exactly the same way it affected the external account. The only thing is that for external account you can take the dividend distribution, while for 401k you cannot - it is reinvested automatically. Were you expecting something else?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6d6c2dfacbe46f6f752dfa6d719a695",
"text": "\"401(k) doesn't have a \"\"return rate\"\", because 401(k) is not a type of investment -- it is a vehicle for investment, with certain tax treatments. Just like your money that's not in a 401(k), you can invest it in either the bank, a CD, stocks, mutual funds, bonds, etc., you can similarly (depending on the options given to you by your 401(k) plan) invest the money in the 401(k) in a cash account, buy stocks, mutual funds, etc. Your return is dependent on how you invest your money, not whether it's in a 401(k) or not. Whether it's in a (Roth or Traditional) 401(k) simply affects when and how it gets taxed. (It is true that most 401(k) plans offer little variety in types of investments you can choose; however, this is not a big deal, as chances are that in a few years, you will leave your company, at which point you are able to rollover the 401(k) into an IRA, at which point you will have many, many options for how to invest it.) To make a valid comparison, you should be comparing the same type of investment in both cases. That means, you should assume the same return for both the money outside the 401(k), and the money inside the 401(k), and only consider the taxes and penalties (if you plan to withdraw early).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56aca2aa766b7e980642a5b02da78a3b",
"text": "\"If the difference in performance is worth it, consider \"\"borrowing\"\" from your 401k to put into the Roth. You pay it back, but you can stretch it out over time, and the interest charged is actually yours, because you borrowed from yourself. But you can only borrow half of the account and you have to pay it back before you can do another loan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4f272cbcf780e50d86fda8794acb691",
"text": "You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns. Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains. The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it. This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA. So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs. If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur. You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year. These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on. With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b163e05a8bc82fc2d2c28d0c5c8e1f6",
"text": "\"You need to hope that a fund exists targeting the particular market segment you are interested in. For example, searching for \"\"cloud computing ETF\"\" throws up one result. You'd then need to read all the details of how it invests to figure out if that really matches up with what you want - there'll always be various trade-offs the fund manager has to make. For example, with this fund, one warning is that this ETF makes allocations to larger firms that are involved in the cloud computing space but derive the majority of their revenues from other operations Bear in mind that today's stock prices might have already priced in a lot of future growth in the sector. So you might only make money if the sector exceeds that predicted growth level (and vice versa, if it grows, but not that fast, you could lose money). If the sector grows exactly as predicted, stock prices might stay flat, though you'd still make a bit of money if they pay dividends. Also, note that the expense ratios for specialist funds like this are often quite a bit higher than for \"\"general market\"\" funds. They are also likely to be traded less frequently, which will increase the \"\"bid-ask\"\" spread - i.e. the cost of buying into and getting out of these funds will be higher.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5690eaae89163640cbf37f9a08ce9024
|
What are my options for paying off the large balance of my federal, high interest student loans?
|
[
{
"docid": "4806432231f19496e6b52cb6319b38f3",
"text": "As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "7005cfd9b4897d745e7d713225a96596",
"text": "\"First, pay off the highest interest first. If you have 80%, pay it first. Paying off a card/loan with a lower rate, but a lower payment or a lower balance can help your mental capacity by having fewer things to pay. But, this should be a decision where things are similar, such as 20-25%, not 20-80%. What about any actual loans? Any loans with a fixed payment and a fixed amount? If you must continue to use CC while paying them off, use the one with the lowest interest rate. Call all of your debtors and ask for reduction in interest rate. This is not the option to take first... This is a strategic possibility and will cause credit score issues... If you are considering bankruptcy or not paying back some, then you have even more negotiation power. Consider calling them all and telling them that you only have a little bit of money and would like to negotiate a settlement with them. \"\"I have only a limited amount of money, and lots of debt. I will pay back whomever gives me the best deal.\"\" See what they say. They may not negotiate until you stop paying them for a few months... It is not uncommon to get them to reduce interest (even to 0%) and/or take a reduction in the amount due - up to 25 cents on the dollar. To do this, you might need to pay the amount all at once, so look into loans from sources like retirement, home equity, life insurance, family... Also, cut out all expenses. Cut them hard; cut until it hurts. Cut out the cell phone (get a pre-paid plan and/or budget $10-20/month), cut out all things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, lottery, tattoos, cable tv, steak, eating out. Some people would suggest that you consider pets and finding them a new home. No games, no trips, no movies, no new clothes... Cut out soft drinks, candy, and junk food. Take precautions to stay healthy - don't wear shoes in the house, brush your teeth, take a multi vitamin, get exercise, eat healthy (this is not expensive, organic stuff, just regular groceries). Consider other ways to save, like moving in with family or friends. Having family or friends live with you and pay rent. Analyze costs like daycare vs. job income. Apply for assistance - there are lots of levels, and some don't rely on others, such as daycare. Consider making more money - new job, 2nd job, overtime, new career. Consider commute - walk, bike, take the bus. Work 4/10's. Telework. Make a list of every expense and prioritize them. Only keep things which are really necessary. Good Luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f47ca34c0ed5a2b8969c1a00d411e5c",
"text": "It would probably never make sense to do that. Why would you? You'll end up in the bankruptcy court either way, since you won't be able to pay off the loan, and you cannot maintain the monthly payments without getting into more debt. IRA is shielded from bankruptcies, in most States, so it will probably stay with you afterwards. In any case - it will provide you some income when you're old and cannot keep up working. Unfortunately, Federal student loans are also shielded, but the rest of you debt - isn't. I suggest trying to fix your budgets and see how you can improve your earnings to be able to maintain your payments. I can't understand how you could have racked up $140K student debt and have a career at which you earn $55K/year for an experienced employee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40e63eabd78c2e65995082762ec7900d",
"text": "\"There are a great number of financial obligations that should be considered more urgent than student loan debt. I'll go ahead and assume that the ones that can land people in jail aren't an issue (unpaid fines, back taxes, etc.). I cannot stress this enough, so I'll say it again: setting money aside for emergencies is so much more important than paying off student loans. I've seen people refer to saving as \"\"paying yourself\"\" if that helps justify it in your mind. My wife and I chose to aggressively pay down debt we had stupidly accrued during college, and I got completely blindsided by a layoff during the downturn. Guess what happened to all those credit cards we'd paid off and almost paid off? Guess what happened to my 401k? If all we had left were student loans, then I still wouldn't prioritize paying those off. There are income limits to Roth IRAs, so if you're in a field where you'll eventually make too much to contribute, then you'll lose that opportunity forever. If you're young and you don't feel like learning too much about investing, plop 100% of your contributions into the low-fee S&P 500 index fund and forget it until you get closer to retirement. Don't get suckered into their high-fee \"\"Retirement 20XX\"\" managed funds. Anyway, sure, if you have at least three months of income replacement in savings, have maximized your employer 401k match, have maximized your Roth IRA contributions for the year, and have no other higher interest debt, then go ahead and knock out those student loans.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29b6e8b978e35dbb47d436dd1d9cd0c4",
"text": "Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e044e38a50bd0167f31b7cc9d61a5946",
"text": "Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 26% interest rate card saves you $260 / year. Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 23% interest rate card saves you $230 / year. Every $1,000 you put in a savings account earning ~0.5% interest earns you $5 / year. Having cash on hand is good in case of emergencies, but typically if your debt is on high interest credit cards, you should consider paying off as much of it as possible. In your case you may want to keep only some small amount (maybe $500, maybe $1000, maybe $100) in cash for emergencies. Paying off your high interest debt should be a top priority for you. You may want to look on this site for help with budgeting, also. Typically, being in debt to credit card companies is a sign of living beyond your means. It costs you a lot of money in the long run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50bd800bc724032df643034909cc34a6",
"text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07e74d5b629763a3259948816631fa40",
"text": "I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b7e69c4462182ca6b9aaf0ccf110ab1",
"text": "First, let me fill in the gaps on your situation, based on the numbers you've given so far. I estimate that your student loan balance (principal) is $21,600. With the variable rate loan option that you've presented, the maximum interest rate you could be charged would be 11.5%, which would bring your monthly payment up to that $382 number you gave in the comments. Your thoughts are correct about the advantage to paying this loan off sooner. If you are planning on paying off this loan sooner, the interest rate on the variable rate loan has less opportunity to climb. One thing to be cautious of with the comparison, though: The $1200 difference between the two options is only valid if your rate does not increase. If the rate does increase, of course, the difference would be less, or it could even go the other way. So keep in mind that the $1200 savings is only a theoretical maximum; you won't actually see that much savings with the variable rate option. Before making a decision, you need to find out more about the terms of this variable rate loan: How often can your rate go up? What is the loan rate based on? I'm not as familiar with student loan variable rate loans, but there are other variable rate loans I am familiar with: With a typical adjustable rate home mortgage, the rate is locked for a certain number of years (perhaps 5 years). After that, the bank might be allowed to raise the rate once every period of months (perhaps once every year). There will be a limit to how much the rate can rise on each increase (perhaps 1.0%), and there will be a maximum rate that could be charged over the life of the loan (perhaps 12%). The interest rate on your mortgage can adjust up, inside of those parameters. (The actual formula used to adjust will be found in the fine print of your mortgage contract.) However, the bank knows that if they let your rate get too high above the current market rates, you will refinance to a different bank. So the mortgage is typically structured so that it will raise your rate somewhat, but it won't usually get too far above the market rate. If you knew ahead of time that you would have the house paid off in 5 years, or that you would be selling the house before the 5 years is over, you could confidently take the adjustable rate mortgage. Credit cards, on the other hand, also typically have variable rates. These rates can change every month, but they are usually calculated on some formula determined ahead of time. For example, on my credit card, the interest rate is the published Prime Rate plus 13.65%. On my last statement, it said the rate was 17.15%. (Of course, because I pay my balance in full each month, I don't pay any interest. The rate could go up to 50%, for all I care.) As I said, I don't know what determines the rate on your variable rate student loan option, and I don't know what the limits are. If it climbs up to 11.5%, that is obviously ridiculously high. I recommend that you try to pay off this student loan as soon as you possibly can; however, if you are not planning on paying off this student loan early, you need to try to determine how likely the rate is to climb if you want to pick the variable rate option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cc449161a017138e7d63961ad07a965",
"text": "Should I use the money to pay off student loans and future grad expenses for me? Yes. The main drawback to student loans is that they cannot be gotten rid of except by paying them off (other than extreme circumstances such as death or complete disability). A mortgage, car loan, or other collateralized loans can be dealt with by selling the underlying collateral. Credit card loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. Stop borrowing for college, pay for it in cash, then decide what to do with the rest. Make sure you have a comfortable amount saved for emergencies in a completely liquid account (not a retirement account or CDs), and continue to pay off with the rest. You might also consider putting some away for your kids' college, so I want to get my older son into a private middle school for 2 years. They have a hardy endowment and may offer us a decent need based scholarship if we look worthy on paper I have a hard time getting behind this plan with a 238K mortgage. If you want to apply for scholarships that's great - but don't finagle your finances to look like you're poor when you have a quarter-million-dollar house. If you want to save some for private school then do that out of what you have. Otherwise either rearrange your priorities so you can afford it or private school might not be in the cards for you. That said- while it was a blessing to be able to pay off the second mortgage and credit cards, your hesitancy to pay off the student loans makes me wonder if you will start living within your means after the loans are paid off. My concern is that your current spending levels that got you in this much debt in the first place will put you back in debt in the near future, and you won't have another inheritance to help pull you out. I know that wasn't your question, but I felt like I needed to add that to my answer as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce0b8223dc2c0a33c6a2dd1dd190b9b2",
"text": "Pay off your highest-interest debt first: credit card, car, maybe even mortgage. Pay minimums on all else. Student loans are typically low interest, so pay off anything else first, but double-check your rate of course. Even if you have no other debt, you may still want to hang on to your savings instead of paying down your student loans if getting rid of your savings causes you to accrue debt. For example, if you have a low income and no savings, you may accrue credit card debt (high interest). Or you may want to buy a car with cash instead of getting a loan. Even if this is not an issue, consider what you can do with your savings that others who lack them cannot do. You can put it into mutual funds, which may offer higher rate of return (albeit with risk) than your student loan interest. Or you may pay a down payment on a home. The very low interest rates of student loans are, to a person with savings, essentially a source of cheap money that doesn't need to be justified to a bank. You can use it as seed money to start a business, as funds for travel, for living expenses while in the Peace Corps, or whatever else. But if you pay down that principal, you bind yourself. In short, pay down your student loans when there is no better use for the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54df40bf61e056d37576ccc99111fa4c",
"text": "So many answers here are missing the mark. I have a $100k mortgage--because that isn't paid off, I can't buy a car? That's really misguided logic. You have a reasonably large amount of college debt and didn't mention any other debt-- It's a really big deal what kind of debt this is. Is it unsecured debt through a private lender? Is it a federal loan from the Department of Education? Let's assume the worst possible (reasonable) situation. You lose your job and spend the next year plus looking for work. This is the boat numerous people out of college are in (far far far FAR more than the unemployment rates indicate). Federal loans have somewhat reasonable (indentured servitude, but I digress) repayment strategies; you can base the payment on your current income through income-based and income-continent repayment plans. If you're through a private lender, they still expect payment. In both cases--because the US hit students with ridiculous lending practices, your interest rates are likely 5-10% or even higher. Given your take-home income is quite large and I don't know exactly the cost of living where you live--you have to make some reasonable decisions. You can afford a car note for basically any car you want. What's the worst that happens if you can't afford the car? They take it back. If you can afford to feed yourself, house yourself, pay your other monthly bills...you make so much more than the median income in the US that I really don't see any issues. What you should do is write out all your monthly costs and figure out how much unallocated money you have, but I'd imagine you have enough money coming in to finance any reasonable new or used car. Keep in mind new will have much higher insurance and costs, but if you pick a good car your headaches besides that will be minimal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "6dd9d2457e4a336bbf0ff70a00cdd6f6",
"text": "Should I use the profit to pay down student loans or just roll it into my next house in order to have a lower mortgage amount? Calculate the amount of interest in each scenario, where the two scenarios are: Use extra cash to pay down student loans, take out a full mortgage. Use extra cash to make a big down payment on the next house, keep paying down student loans at normal rate. In both scenarios the student loan rate will stay the same. However in the second scenario you may get a lower interest rate from making a larger down payment. So then calculate the total interest resulting from each scenario: student loan rateXremaining student loan balance=student loan interest new mortgage rateXnew mortgage balance=mortgage interest scenario 1 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest student loan rateXstudent loan balance = student loan interest new mortgage rate with large down paymentXnew mortgage balance after large down payment = mortgage interest scenario 2 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest Whichever scenario's interest is lower will save money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a62a4484a7bc46e7966448a76f721e38
|
How to compare the value of a Masters to the cost?
|
[
{
"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": "506f090761968559e27081091a070e64",
"text": "I am a bit unsure of why the interest rate is relevant. Are you intending on borrowing the money to go to school? If you cannot pay cash, then it is very likely a bad idea. Many people are overcome by events when seeking higher education and such a loan on a such a salary could devastate you financially. So I find the cost of the program as a total of 76.6K counting a loss in salary during the program and the first year grant. That is a lot of money, do you intend to borrow that much? Especially when you consider that your salary, after you graduate, will be about equal to where you are now. For that reason I am leaning toward a no, even if you had the cash in hand to do so. There is nothing to say that you will enjoy teaching. Furthermore teaching in low income school is more challenging. All that said, is there a way you can raise your income without going back to school? Washington state can be a very expensive place to live and is one of the reason why I left. I am a WWU alumni (Go Vikings!). Could you cash flow a part time program instead? I would give this a sound no, YMMV.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e0c5868d2119d0da3a222c213eb08af",
"text": "Just looking at your question I can tell it's not worth it financially, even if you didn't borrow the money to do it. At your current rate, you'll be making 54,384 in 5 years, which is roughly a growth of 2.5% per year. If you go for the masters, in 5 years you'll be making 55,680, with roughly the same growth rate (2.5%). So it's costing you $70,000 (the cost of school plus the 2 years of reduced income) to raise your salary by $1,300. The payback period would be about 25 years. It would be MUCH worse if you borrowed the money to do it. Not a chance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b43743e858132b99004d6b4fb30a5151",
"text": "\"I speak from a position of experience, My BS and MS are both in Comp Sci. I know very little about loans or finances. That is very unfortunate as you are obviously an intelligent human being. Perhaps this is a good time to pause your formal education and get educated in personal finance. To me, it is that important. I study computer science, and am thus confident that I will be able to find work after I finish school. This kind of attitude can lead to trouble. You will likely have a high salary, but that does not always translate into prosperity. Personal finance is more about behavior then mathematics. I currently work with people that have high salaries in a low cost of living area. Some have lost homes due to foreclosure some are very limited in their options because of high student loan balances. Some are millionaires without hitting the IPO/startup lotto. The difference is behavior. It's possible that someone in my family will be able to cosign and help me out with this loan. This is indicative of lack of knowledge and poor financial behavior. This kind of thing can lead to strained relationships to the point where people don't talk to each other. Never co-sign for anyone, and if you value the relationship with a person never ask them to co-sign. I'll be working as a TA again for a $1000 stipend. Yikes! Why in the world would you work for 1K when you need 4K? You should find a way to earn 6K this semester so you can save some and put some toward the loans you already acquired. Accepting this kind of situation \"\"raises red flags\"\" on your attitude towards personal finance. And yes it is possible, you can earn that waiting tables and if you can find a part time programming gig you can make a lot more then that. Consider working as a TA and wait tables until you find that first programming gig. I am just about done with my undergraduate degree, and will be starting graduate school at the same university next semester. To me this is a recipe for failure in most cases. You have expended all your financing options to date and are planning to go backwards even more. Why not get out of school with your BS, and go to work? You can save up some of your MS tuition and most companies will provide tuition reimbursement. Computer Science/Software Engineering can be a fickle market. Right now things are going crazy and times are really good. However that was not always the case during my career and unlikely for yours. For example, Just this year I bypassed my highest rate of pay that occurred in 2003. I was out of work most of 2004, and for part of 2005 I actually made less then when I was working while in college. In 2009 my company cut our salaries by 5%, but the net cost to me was more like a 27% cut. In 2001 I worked as a contractor for a company that had a 10% reduction in full time employees, yet they kept us contractors working. Recently I talked with a recruiter about a position doing J2EE, which is what I am doing now. It required a high level security clearance which is not an easy thing to get. The rub was that it was located in a higher cost of living area and only paid about 70% of what I am making now. They required more and paid less, but such is the market. You need to learn about these things! Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b424c046dbafe620ac0c5aa18fcb993",
"text": "I'm finishing up a PhD in econ this year. I did a similar route to you. M.A. in finance / econ - split with business school and economics department then moved into a PhD. If I had to do it over again, I would go straight into the PhD program. I'd say skip the MA, especially since you have an interest in academia. The MA was more or less a waste of time and you get the MA as you're doing your PhD work anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e497bb3040ac36c1692bb5c8513e247",
"text": "Fair enough, but the MSF program is still quant heavy. Probably not to the same degree, but I would imagine it would challenge you in some ways, particularly if you got into a top tier institution (i.e. Princeton or MIT).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "352b921f62a82c64dfe8f3d3bf86c4c8",
"text": "Hmmm. I assume to be accepted into a PhD/masters program without a masters one would have to be an absolute stud though. I come from a school that isn't too hot on academics. It is a large public research institution, but it's not a UT or Notre Dame type school. I guess I should talk to my professors about the whole process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8f5c67f878e8aa0682ee18e0675e321",
"text": "IRR is subjective, if you could provide another metric instead of the IRR; then this would make sense. You can't spend IRR. For example, you purchase a property with a down payment; and the property provides cash-flow; you could show that your internal rate of return is 35%, but your actual rate of importance could be the RoR, or Cap Rate. I feel that IRR is very subjective. IRR is hardly looked at top MBA programs. It's studied, but other metrics are used, such as ROI, ROR, etc. IRR should be a tool that you visually compare to another metric. IRR can be very misleading, for example it's like the cash on cash return on an investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52a6ddf06be78ea86054232dbf615837",
"text": "What should I do? Weigh your options and decide which education investment lines up better with your goals. Some of the costs from pursuing a degree at the more reputable university may include: However there are probably some benefits to pursuing a degree at this university: You will know best which of these apply to you in addition to any pros or cons not mentioned. You need to evaluate each one in order to make a decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa9dd2eb08493ef9110388d88f5b7f85",
"text": "What is your goal? I would, under most circumstances, not recommend the Masters. I did it because I studied engineering in undergrad but wanted to transition to finance right away. The reality is that a good undergrad will give you most of the tools you need for success in a junior finance role. The critical piece is networking with professionals and working in the markets to elevate your stance before graduation. I am not an advocate for a lot of investment in education as the payback is less than most alternatives (IB analyst training, CFA, internships, etc.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbee5019ab0ce46cad0addc381d33d86",
"text": "\"I met two MBA graduates from Harvard - both made VPs at large Canadian companies (i.e. $1B or greater annual revenue) after working 2-5 years as management consultants post-graduation - one is now a divisional president making over $500K in salary along. When I asked one of them (one that is not yet making $500K in salary) about the Harvard MBA difference, he said the brand-name and the network probably set it apart from others, since most MBA schools now uses the same material as Harvard's. I tend to agree with his thoughts - I never did felt the caliber of my professor had much to do with my ability to apply what I learn to practical use. In my own MBA education, the professor did more facilitation than \"\"teaching\"\". Apparently that is the norm, as MBA is less about being fed information than it is about demonstrating the ability to analyze and present information. Back to M.Attia's question, I would go with the highest ranked MBA education I could afford (both financially and lifestyle). A friend of mine was able to get his employer to pay for the $90K tuition fee from Rotman, along with job security for 5 years (not a bad idea in this economy). I settled for Lansbridge University in Fedricton because the flexibility of distance learning and cost was important to me, though I was able to get my employer to pay for the MBA after I started (I switched group within the company shortly after I started my MBA and my new boss was able to get the approval without locking me in).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83045d9a218cfdfe1e721a351c3f6f2e",
"text": "I'm currently a senior finance student in Pittsburgh graduating in May. I get pretty good grades (3.2) and have had a few internships. I've recently decided I want to go to grad school as soon as possible, but am unsure of the next steps in my process. Could someone point me in the right direction?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a7f714f0a3b50be1430a11363a34698",
"text": "Aswath Damodaran's [Investment Valuation 3rd edition](http://www.amazon.com/Investment-Valuation-Techniques-Determining-University/dp/1118130731/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1339995852&sr=8-12&keywords=aswath+damodaran) (or save money and go with a used copy of the [2nd edition](http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0471414905/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used)) He's a professor at Stern School of Business. His [website](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/) and [blog](http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/) are good resources as well. [Here is his support page](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/Inv3ed.htm) for his Investment Valuation text. It includes chapter summaries, slides, ect. If you're interested in buying the text you can get an idea of what's in it by checking that site out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d084c222587f5a3e4e5407b93e6d04a",
"text": "when you consider the cost of living and the restrictions on working it is nearly the same. I'm able to work part time in the US and go to a state school so my total debt is only around 40k. The biggest problem is that for the degree plans i looked at in public administration and education are not recognized. Of course, I will gladly read any sources you are willing to share that report otherwise.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e8002a8483e94f44f69a314c387ea4a",
"text": "I believe @Dilip addressed your question alread, I am going to focus on your second question: What are the criteria one should use for estimating the worth of the situation? The criteria are: I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "259db994dcd2e808930fe40d0f155490",
"text": "\"The best advice I can give you is that you need to start on math *now*. I made the same mistake as OP and didn't realize that going up in finance would require as much math as it does. Granted, I was undergrad finance not marketing like him, so maybe it was a little better for me, but if you really want to do upper level finance do NOT skimp on math. It's easy to fall into the trap doing cal 2 your sophomore year and thinking \"\"I won't really need this\"\" and just doing the minimum to get through it. For undergrad, that's true. For Master's you'll need it. This happened to me, and I suffered a LOT because of it. Your professors in the master's program will likely give you a crash course in what you need to know, but you won't have a real understanding of it unless you took (and did really well in) those math classes beforehand. To answer your question, 1. Maybe. You should definitely take cal 1 early. Depending on how you can hold on to the information, cal 2 can wait a bit, so it's fresher when you start doing upper level finance your second half of junior year/senior year. 2. Upper level finance is a whole different beast from lower level finance. Same with economics. If you're not good at math, if you don't enjoy math, it might not be the best choice. I'm not good at math, and the undergrad finance wasn't too bad. However, the master's program was very very not fun. EDIT: YMMV, but I don't recommend going straight into the master's program straight out of undergrad. Work (in industry!) for a bit first. The jobs you need to a master's for won't hire you straight out of undergrad, so it'll be dead weight. Experience is what you need.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0bb7134b4976d519582afd0b2420571",
"text": "The context actually was higher education and student debt load (which extends to cost). You can try to broaden it but the title of the thread, the linked article, the comment I replied to and my comments all reference higher education and costs. Once again, your comment is correct in a broader context, just not in the one we were in, at least not to all readers clearly. You want to be right but what you need to accept is that you just flubbed your post (tbh I agree with you on most points here) and should likely add some more detail to your statements.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
33e0ca071c18d530524aba43003498ac
|
How to invest my British pound salary
|
[
{
"docid": "b8bc5ac6fc7eafb3ec03c29d82e651ec",
"text": "\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b2dc71470981d50a7cf756d94fc78b87",
"text": "Convert the money into United States Dollars, put it in an NRE account in India and get 5% per annum for the USD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40c37a74208cc22a7412f5890082c62f",
"text": "\"+1 on all the answers above. You're in a great position and have the right attitude. A good book on the subject is A Random Walk Down Wall Street - well worth a read. Essentially, go for low tax paying in, low tax taking out approach (in the uk that's a SIPP or ISA), a low cost well diversified unit fund (like a Vanguard LifeStrategy 100), on a low cost platform (\"\"Annual Management Charge\"\" in be UK). Keep paying a regular amount and let compound interest take care of things. I'd also add that you should think about what lifestyle you would want at specific ages and work out what you need to save to achieve these - even though they are probably a long time in the future, it makes your goals \"\"real\"\". Read Mr Money Moustache for some ideas http://www.mrmoneymustache.com\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dbe36e7d333c6d096f12c3665f9261e",
"text": "I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a84f16ada81922d72884f228646ce307",
"text": "I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "691830ea6b7e3ffbb4cf2dd14adc9f17",
"text": "If it were possible to take a loan out for a SIPP investment in the future .. I would suggest having an equivalent invested amount already in an ISA .. simply to cover you in the event of a job loss including additional cash in a deposit account. Secondly .. to increase your chances of success with this strategy I would also suggest doing this when the odds are more in your favour during the bottoming out cycle of a market crash. Thirdly .. it depends on how knowledgeable you are about investment , I would suggest being invested globally & in many different sectors to take advantage of various price movements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b95b3fce2acbc010beeff2f59722420",
"text": "In addition to the other excellent answers here, check out Mr. Money Mustache's site, it's based in the US but the basics still hold here in the UK. Another great site is the Monevator which is UK based and gives some great information on passive investing. Well done on getting to this point at your age - you've got plenty of time for the miracle of compound interest to work for you. EDIT: Once you have any existing debts paid off, take a look at passive/index investing. This could be a good way to make your £150 work for you by capturing the gains of the stock market. Invest it long-term (buy and hold) to make the most of the compound interested effect and over time that money will become something substantial - especially if you can increase payments over time as your income increases. You could also look at reducing your outgoings as recommended on the Mustache site linked above so you can increase your monthly investment amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fb7b6d8a5c9f61e3a60aebdd6f41562",
"text": "The best thing is to diversify across multiple currencies. USD and EUR seem reliable. But not 100% reliable to keep all your investments in this types of currencies. Invest part of your savings in USD, part - in EUR, and part in your home country's currency. Apart from investing I recommend you to have certain sum in cash and certain on your bank account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38209351c883c0ccdec99ec8f3586956",
"text": "\"I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you \"\"beat the market\"\", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61508d8f8e827dbf949055ad91010b6",
"text": "\"Ultimately you are as stuck as all other investors with low returns which get taxed. However there are a few possible mitigations. You can put up to 15k p.a. into a \"\"normal\"\" ISA (either cash or stocks & shares, or a combination) if your target is to generate the depost over 5 years you should maximise the amount you put in an ISA. Then when you come to buy, you cash in that part needed to top up your other savings for a deposit - i.e. keep the rest in for long term savings. The help to buy ISA might be helpful, but yes there is a limit on the purchase price which in London will restrict you. Several banks are offering good interest on limited sums in current accounts - Santander is probably the best you can get 3% (taxed) on up to 20K - this is a good \"\"safe\"\" return. Just open a 123 Account, arrange to pay out a couple of DDs and pay in £500 a month (you can take the £500 straight out again). I think Lloyds and TSB also offer similar but on much smaller ammounts. Be warned this strategy taken to the limit will involve some complexity checking your various accounts each month. After that you will end up trading better returns for greater risk by using more volatile stock market investments rather than cash deposits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30feb5a4ba881b67248e3400ceb0ad70",
"text": "\"What a lovely position to find yourself in! There's a lot of doors open to you now that may not have opened naturally for another decade. If I were in your shoes (benefiting from the hindsight of being 35 now) at 21 I'd look to do the following two things before doing anything else: 1- Put 6 months worth of living expenses in to a savings account - a rainy day fund. 2- If you have a pension, I'd be contributing enough of my salary to get the company match. Then I'd top up that figure to 15% of gross salary into Stocks & Shares ISAs - with a view to them also being retirement funds. Now for what to do with the rest... Some thoughts first... House: - If you don't want to live in it just yet, I'd think twice about buying. You wouldn't want a house to limit your career mobility. Or prove to not fit your lifestyle within 2 years, costing you money to move on. Travel: - Spending it all on travel would be excessive. Impromptu travel tends to be more interesting on a lower budget. That is, meeting people backpacking and riding trains and buses. Putting a resonable amount in an account to act as a natural budget for this might be wise. Wealth Managers: \"\"approx. 12% gain over 6 years so far\"\" equates to about 1.9% annual return. Not even beat inflation over that period - so guessing they had it in ultra-safe \"\"cash\"\" (a guaranteed way to lose money over the long term). Give them the money to 'look after' again? I'd sooner do it myself with a selection of low-cost vehicles and equal or beat their return with far lower costs. DECISIONS: A) If you decided not to use the money for big purchases for at least 4-5 years, then you could look to invest it in equities. As you mentioned, a broad basket of high-yielding shares would allow you to get an income and give opportunity for capital growth. -- The yield income could be used for your travel costs. -- Over a few years, you could fill your ISA allowance and realise any capital gains to stay under the annual exemption. Over 4 years or so, it'd all be tax-free. B) If you do want to get a property sooner, then the best bet would to seek out the best interest rates. Current accounts, fixed rate accounts, etc are offering the best interest rates at the moment. Usual places like MoneySavingExpert and SavingsChampion would help you identify them. -- There's nothing wrong with sitting on this money for a couple of years whilst you fid your way with it. It mightn't earn much but you'd likely keep pace with inflation. And you definitely wouldn't lose it or risk it unnecessarily. C) If you wanted to diversify your investment, you could look to buy-to-let (as the other post suggested). This would require a 25% deposit and likely would cost 10% of rental income to have it managed for you. There's room for the property to rise in value and the rent should cover a mortgage. But it may come with the headache of poor tenants or periods of emptiness - so it's not the buy-and-forget that many people assume. With some effort though, it may provide the best route to making the most of the money. D) Some mixture of all of the above at different stages... Your money, your choices. And a valid choice would be to sit on the cash until you learn more about your options and feel the direction your heart is pointing you. Hope that helps. I'm happy to elaborate if you wish. Chris.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "638947ae1029dd877c240c92506276e6",
"text": "Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30145c66a11d058bae0676502bd4bb35",
"text": "\"Invest! Because you are young and have lots of time, I recommend opening an investment account and putting most (1000£?) or all in something like an S&P 500 index fund or ETF. Start building your savings now because compound growth over time will build significant wealth. You can still invest the other 500£/mo in something a bit less volatile if you think you'll need the money in < 5 years. If you expect your income to continue to grow and you expect to have extra cash every month for the foreseeable future, I'd just put it all in an index fund. You can weather any temporary market swings, and in the worst-case scenario you can always sell a few shares if you need the cash. The advantage of an index fund is that it has very low fees and it's an \"\"invest-and-forget\"\" approach. You don't have to watch the market every day because your money will simply match the market. And in the long term the market does much better than most managed funds or ETFs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fund\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c3f83e175a8cc33986f6538defbd934",
"text": "\"I can think of one major income source you didn't mention, dividends. Rather than withdrawing from your pension pot, you can roll it over to a SIPP, invest it in quality dividend growth stocks, then (depending on your pension size) withdraw only the dividends to live on. The goal here is that you buy quality dividend growth stocks. This will mean you rarely have to sell your investments, and can weather the ups and downs of the market in relative comfort, while using the dividends as your income to live off of. The growth aspect comes into play when considering keeping up with inflation, or simply growing your income. In effect, companies grow the size of their dividend payments and you use that to beat the effects of inflation. Meanwhile, you do get the benefit of principle growth in the companies you've invested in. I don't know the history of the UK stock market, but the US market has averaged over 7% total return (including dividends) over the long term. A typical dividend payout is not much better than your annuity option though -- 3% to 4% is probably achievable. Although, looking at the list of UK Dividend Champion list (companies that have grown their dividend for 25 years continuous), some of them have higher yields than that right now. Though that might be a warning sign... BTW, given all the legal changes around buy-to-lets recently (increases stamp duty on purchase, reduction in mortgage interest deduction, increased paperwork burden due to \"\"right to rent\"\" laws, etc.) you want to check this carefully to make sure you're safe on forecasting your return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92174efaea066aa7b16d666a6d03c5b8",
"text": "\"I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. You just want to see how it \"\"feels\"\" to own a share, right? To go through the process of buying and holding, and eventually selling, be it at a loss or at a gain. Frankly, my primary advice is: Just do it on paper! Just decide, for whatever reason, which stocks to buy, in what amount, subtract 1% for commissions (I'm intentionally staying on the higher side here), and keep track of the price changes daily. Instead of doing it on mere paper, some brokers offer you a demo account where you can practice your paper trading in the same way you would use a live account. As far as I know, Interactive Brokers and Saxo Bank offer such demo accounts, go look around on their web pages. The problem about doing it for real is that many of the better brokers, such as the two I mentioned, have relatively high minimum funding limits. You need to send a few thousand pounds to your brokerage account before you can even use it. Of course, you don't need to invest it all, but still, the cash has to be there. Especially for some younger and inexperienced investors, this can seduce them to gambling most of their money away. Which is why I would not advise you to actually invest in this way. It will be expensive but if it's just for trying it on one share, use your local principal bank for the trade. Hope this gets you started!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de1c3f369648d07b5b08720b0545286d",
"text": "\"The above answers are great. I would only add to the \"\"rainy day\"\" part, that even though the cash provides a good cushion, \"\"a stormy day\"\" could mean even losing those emergency savings to the unignorable randomness that governs the world economy. Though unlikely, what happened to the russian ruble and the latest decision of the swiss cental bank are just two recent reminders that uncertainty must be treated as a constant. I would therefore advise you to invest some of the money in land capable of agriculture. How expensive is land over there in the UK?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fdc5f0df17853767b49b7dd76dc42ee2
|
My bank wants to lower my credit limit on my credit card. Will this impact me negatively?
|
[
{
"docid": "7a973884516a9b20614aa458246f2d06",
"text": "No, it will have no negative impact on getting a mortgage. You are building up a history with regular payments and are not carrying a balance on the card each month. Your ability to get a mortgage will ultimately be based on other things. Money Saving Expert has a good guide on what will affect your credit score. A further discussion on the topic that backs up that what a mortgage company is interested in is affordability and a stable history. They really don't care about utilisation ratios. (Though might be spooked by almost maxed out cards - sign of poor spending control, or large unused limits - too easy to go into bad debt.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d30d9944ffb350a939e480f136721847",
"text": "Will having a lower credit limit, which I will still never reach, negatively impact my ability to get a mortgage in future? This would increase your utilization, the percentage of your total available credit that you use at any one time. Because it decreases the divisor, your total available credit, while not changing the dividend, the amount of your credit that you use. In the United States, you generally want utilization to be between 8% and 30%. So if this increases your utilization, it could hurt your credit score (or if your utilization is low enough, possibly help it). I do not know if the rule is the same in the United Kingdom or not, but this site claims that it is at least similar. 22% is an OK utilization, assuming you have no other debt. But a utilization of 17% is closer to 8% and may be better. It may be worth calling them to keep your credit limit where it is if they don't ask too much from you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f52db782d7f454a32f753ee772bfb8bb",
"text": "Paying weekly to be able to have maneuver room under your credit limit is a way to handle low credit limits. Doing it to boost your credit score when you have no immediate need for a loan is wasting energy. A few months in advance of buying a car or house, you can start to worry about your utilization rate. When you apply for the loan they will pull your credit file, and that will lock in your utilization rates. Then make sure that you pay the balance quickly, and if you need to make a big purchase pay the bill before the account closes for the month. Keep in mind that if you pay the balance every month the highest utilization rate will occur the day the payment is due. This is because it not only has all the purchases from the previous bill, but all the purchases you have made since that bill closed. For example if you have a credit limit of 10K and you spend 2K a month on the credit card, on the day the payment is due it is not unusual to see the total owed to be above 3K. If they pulled your file on that day, your utilization rate would appear to be above 30%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "074ce24b4b91ea5b5e687d5911d8da83",
"text": "5% cashback? Wow. No, this would not generally affect your credit rating. You aren't altering anything that is generally tracked by the credit rating agencies. You put a purchase on your credit card which temporarily increases your utilisation, but then immediately pay it off, leaving your utilisation practically unchanged.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c4abd762163886d13171978d7a9541e",
"text": "If you want to close the card, close it. The impact on your credit score will be minimal, if any, and the impact on your life will likely be even less. First, as you noted, the history from your card does not disappear when you close the card; it will stay on your credit report for as long as 10 years. By that time, you'll have many years of on-time payments from your other cards, and the loss of this one card won't be significant. Because the card has a low credit limit, it won't have much effect on your credit utilization numbers, either. Finally, your credit score might just be high enough that a small drop will have no impact on your financial life whatsoever. In my opinion, hanging onto a credit card you don't want just to try to attain some type of high score is pointless. Close the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f780ede624cc558237341e4335e2dd31",
"text": "The answer to your question is no. Your credit rating is the way creditors let each other know whether you are in a good position and have a strong tendency to repay your debts, not whether you are an easy target for making money on interest and penalties associated with failing to repay debts in full. The fact that you make your payments on time will definitely not lower your credit rating. While the banks are not making as much money on you as they would if you carried a balance, they are also not spending a lot of money on you, nor losing a lot of money on people like you failing to repay debts. The transactions charged to the retailers cover the costs of operating your card and then a little bit. That is enough to make you worth keeping as a customer. They are happy with your arrangement. The formula for credit rating computation is proprietary, but we know what the factors are overall. Making payments on time consistently is a positive, not a negative factor. However, they do look at the number of cards and overall mix of cards and other types of debt. For example, if you have a very large amount of credit capacity in your cards and no mortgage, that could possibly be a negative. If you have opened some of those accounts recently, it could be a negative. If you have a larger number credit cards than they think is good, that could be a negative. There are other things as well that could be bringing your score down. Probably worth it to take a look. If you want to get an idea of what factors are adding positively and negatively to your credit score, I'd encourage you to visit CreditKarma.com, Quizzle.com, or another source intended to help you understand and improve your credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a370c3a336e48f29bfcbc69fc83b868",
"text": "\"Sometimes you need to do more than ask to have your rating reduced. You need to make it in their best interest (no pun intended) to do it. Find the lowest rate card and then tell the others you want to transfer your balance to that card and close the account (don't do it, it is an empty threat). I guarantee they will transfer you to a retention agent who will give you a better deal. From their perspective your current offer is getting 19% interest instead of 22%, why would they do that without some motivation? With the approach described above their options are get 19% interest instead of 0% interest. It is all about negotiation and the \"\"Retention agents\"\" have the most leverage to do so.\"",
"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": "5fa2fdb9afac53bf36b34740cd97dec0",
"text": "\"The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to \"\"snowball\"\" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e4de5ee34553d4e9d81d02d02bd3b5c",
"text": "My card keeps a separate 'cash advance' limit, that's lower than the regular rate. I believe balance transfers also trigger that limit and (much higher) interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02438e9bb394de18945773d7b7842e30",
"text": "The only drawback is if you spend more than you can with the new limit and end up having to pay interest if you can't pay the balance in full. Other than that, there are no drawbacks to getting a credit increase. On the flip side, it's actually good for you. It shows that the banks trust you with more credit, and it also decreases your credit utilization ratio (assuming you spend the same).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75fe4e68887941daac5a00d26e9a3c06",
"text": "Assumptions 1 & 2 are correct. Plus you will improve on credit score. The only disadvantage is if you get lax about it and overspend beyond your limit ... Plus a small risk of fraud of card transactions ...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c80ca8f9dc887b28b5771edef88368c4",
"text": "\"Here's my crude reasoning: Let's say you have just one recently acquired credit card with a $5000 limit. The company that issued the credit card set the $5000 limit based on however they assessed your risk. Now if you're using a significant portion of of the $5000 limit, it means (at least for them) that you are stretching your wallet. Even if you've been paying monthly consistently and since you are heavily using your limit, it also means that if you lose your primary source of money for even one month, (income etc.), then your risk to the lender increases sharply. Had you been making more money (compared to this $5000 limit) then either you'd have used less % of your available credit or you would've gotten your limits raised by asking your bank to re-evaluate your risk and increase the limit. Also your statement \"\"Why is a US credit score based on credit utilization?\"\" is slightly incorrect. As per FICO, Credit utilization has 35% weight while your payment history has a weight of 35% http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/help/5-parts-components-fico-credit-score-6000.php To sum it up, we can debate if the weight for credit utilization should be higher or lower but unfortunately as others have pointed out, these scores are meant to help lenders not consumers. So whether we like it or not, the secret algorithms to calculate the scores and the actual weights (variables and rules) they use are completely out of our hands.\"",
"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": "ff517eaa4f37a33a96c6fd72ce6f821a",
"text": "Overpaying a credit card to create a large positive balance may cause a bank to red flag your account. This is a technique used in fraud for check kiting (write or deposit a fraudulent check to overpay your credit card, then demand a refund on the balance overpaid before the check bounces.) Every bank is different: Talk to your bank first before you try this. For a small balance ($5-20) overpayment isn't a big deal, it happens regularly... just spend down the balance. Past that, you might be harming your credit record or risk closing the account if the bank disagrees with how you are using an overpaid balance for a larger purchase, or you risk unwanted law enforcement attention aimed at your finances. If you are trying to do this to build your creditworthiness, a secured card is better for this purpose. Disagree with your credit limit? Deposit more in the holding account.",
"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": "7bd8572aed467d1f9e285837d5171f92",
"text": "You could use a stock-only ISA and invest in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). ETFs are managed mutual funds that trade on open exchanges in the same manner as stocks. This changes the specific fund options you have open to you, but there are so many ETFs at this point that any sector you want to invest in is almost certainly represented.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bf6cdc79fe7990b0ed048db3b75bf7e9
|
Does anyone offer no interest loans?
|
[
{
"docid": "adc056cda7db92a5b012d40e900b26a8",
"text": "Such loans are of course possible. They exist because the lender gains something other than interest from them: What would happen to the economy if these were common? These are common, common as anything. In fact where it's not banks lending the money, these are the default. So, nothing would happen to the economy, this is one of the ways the economy works all over the world. If you're more interested in a loan from a bank or other financial institution, made to you for whatever purpose you want - here's $10,000, have fun, give it back ten years from now - ask yourself what the bank would get from that? Perhaps they could do it as a perk when you do something else with them like get a mortgage or keep $1000 in your chequing account all the time. But in the absence of any other relationship, what would be their reason for taking on the overhead and paperwork of approving you for a loan and keeping track of whether you're paying it back or not, for no return, whether financial or intangible? No return? It doesn't happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b000a97892cc975d572e05f9af9505f",
"text": "This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "832a5559bcaa52f284e96bd250ec057f",
"text": "\"Your thinking is unfortunately incorrect; an amortising loan (as opposed to interest only loans) pay down, or amortise, the principal with each payment. This means that the amount that is owed at prepayment will always be less than the total borrowed, and is also why some providers make a charge for prepayment. The \"\"fairness\"\" arguments that you make predicated on that misunderstanding are, therefore, incorrect.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0289022308ebf38fe78e9fa60167689b",
"text": "Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low. Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account. The bank must maintain branches with tellers. The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities). The bank has to pay salaries. The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change. And pay for insurance against robbery. All of that costs money. At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money. Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out. At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin. They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts. An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees. But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable. So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead. UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22e6a67b3772124c6afed7830c1bfb4f",
"text": "\"A \"\"true\"\" 0% loan is a losing proposition for the bank, that's true. However when you look at actual \"\"0%\"\" loans they usually have some catches: There might also be late payment fees, prepayment penalties, and other clauses that make it a good deal on average to the bank. Individual borrowers might be able to get away with \"\"free money\"\", but the bank does not look to make money on each loan, they look to make money on thousands of loans overall. For a retailer (including new car sellers). the actual financing costs will be baked into the sales price. They will add, say, 10% to the sales price in exchange for an interest-free loan. They can also sell these loans to an investment bank or other entity, but they would be sold at a deep discount, so the difference will be made up in the sales price or other \"\"fees\"\". It's possible that they would just chalk it up to promotional discounts or customer acquisition costs, but it would not be a good practice on a large scale.\"",
"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": "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": "9e480d3236692273886be154a8499ced",
"text": "\"I read up on it and saw that the IRS can \"\"charge\"\" the loan provider on interest even if the loan provider doesn't charge interest, but this is normally mitigated by the 0% interest being considered a gift and as long as it's below X amount your fine. Yes, this sums it up. X is the amount of the gift exemption, the $14K. However, you must differ between loan with no interest and loan with no paying back. With loan with no interest you're still giving a statutory gift of the IRS mandated minimum interest. However, the principal is expected to be repaid to you and you must show that this expectation is reasonably fulfilled. If you cannot (i.e.: you gave a \"\"loan\"\" with no intention of it being paid back), then the IRS will recharacterize the whole amount as the gift, and you'll be on the hook for gift tax for the amounts above the exemption. What defines a loan vs a gift in terms of the IRS, is it simply that the loan will be paid back, or is it only considered a loan if a promisary note is made? As I said - you must be able to show that the loan is indeed a loan, even if it is with no interest. I.e.: it is being repaid, it is treated as a loan by all parties, and is not an attempt to evade gift tax. Promissory note is not a must, but will definitely be helpful in showing that. But without the de-facto repayment of the loan, it will be hard to argue that it is not a gift, even if you have a promissory note. That means, you should make a loan in such a way that the borrower will (begin) repaying it reasonably soon, so that you can show payment schedule being followed and money moving back to you. Reasonably soon is not of course defined in a statute, so do consult with a EA/CPA licensed in your state on how to structure the loan so that it will not appear as an attempt to evade the gift tax. Are there any limits on how big a loan can be? No, but keep in mind that even with statutory interest charges (published by the IRS monthly, see the link), with large enough loan you can exceed the gift tax exemption. Also, keep in mind that interest is taxable income to you. Even if you gift it back (i.e.: the statutory interest).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa4a29677cbaabb9dbf2395e17812b4a",
"text": "I mean, at a personal level, I do this all the time. I will absolutely take advantage of low interest financing offers if I know I can make more money with the outstanding balance than will be drawn in interest. It can also make sense from a risk management perspective: I need liquidity even if I can cover the cost, I anticipate needing a large sum of cash over a short interval during the finance period. If I were to pay all upfront the cumulative expenditures would Darwin me too close to my safety threshold for my comfort level, but by financing I can distribute the risk and keep a higher margin for error over the course of the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "4399251698e20b9d4823ceead594e568",
"text": "\"Tell them you will not loan them any more money until their existing debts are paid off. This is closer to how the real world works and it won't come across as vengeful or like your changing your initial \"\"contract\"\". If they protest, lovingly tell them that your money is not their money, and that an interest free loan from their father is a privilege, not a right. As far as charging interest on your loans, go for it! Charge them 5% or something small. Just don't do it on the existing loans or that will come across as changing your initial \"\"contract\"\" again, and perhaps once they've proven themselves to be reliable borrowers they can once again earn the privilege to have an interest free loan. The book \"\"The Millionaire Next Door\"\" has really good thoughts on this in its section on Economic Outpatient Care.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a29ceaf87d00765a91c3425175ea0ed",
"text": "Of course, the situation for each student will vary widely so you'll have to dig deep on your own to know what is the best choice for your situation. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, the best choice would be to use the Unsubsidized Stafford loan to finance graduate school if you need to resort to loans. The major benefits to the Unsubsidized Stafford are the following: You'll be forced to consider other loan types due to the Unsubsidized Stafford loan's established limits on how much you can borrow per year and in aggregate. The borrowing limits are also adjustable down by your institution. The PLUS loan is a fallback loan program designed to be your last resort. The program was created as a way for parents to borrow money for their college attending children when all other forms of financing have been exhausted. As a result you have the following major disadvantages to using the PLUS loan: You do have the bonus of being able to borrow up to 100% of your educational costs without any limits per year or in aggregate. The major benefit of keeping your loans in the Direct Loan program is predictability. Many private student loans are variable interest rate loans which can result in higher payments during the course of the loan. Private loans are also not eligible for government loan forgiveness programs, such as for working in a non-profit for 10 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8793d06c2f638210aad99902e013eb1",
"text": "Banks worry that the large gift might be a loan that is ultimately expected to be repaid. If so, that affects the cash flow of the recipient, and makes it more difficult to make the mortgage payments to the bank. In some cases, of course, it is an informal loan: Dad advances a large $X to son to use as a downpayent, but does not charge interest and the expectation is that the money will be returned in smaller chunks as and when the son can afford to repay Dad. In some cases, Dad truly means it as a gift, but son feels an obligation to repay the money, if not explicitly, then by paying for the first few months of Dad's nursing home stay, etc. So, banks like to have an explicit document such as a copy of a letter from Dad saying that this money is a gift, and some assurance that this is on the up and up. If the amount is larger than the maximum gift that can be given each year without having to file a gift tax return, then some assurance that a gift tax return will be filed is helpful. Mentioning this in the letter is good: it indicates that there are no secret handshakes or secret agreements to the effect that this is in fact a loan, with or without regular repayments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c8e7d04180bab1c82626651b353546a",
"text": "I funded about a half dozen loans. All were AA or A rated. All but one paid me. The one who stiffed me wiped out all my profit on the others. I ended up with a tiny negative return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20dea3b2e4cbbd789235606ea60ee020",
"text": "At your age, the only place you are going to get a loan is from relatives. If you can't... Go to next year's conference. Missing it this year might feel like a disaster, but it really, really isn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "998308ee3ff8f396abe59c9e60451502",
"text": "In addition to a fee-only advisor, brought up by dg99, you could consider asking your questions on message boards such as Bogleheads.org. I have found the advice amazing, obviously conflict-free, and free.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6da2af21a50921742f75d4af7f683c87
|
Is there a measure that uses both cost of living plus income?
|
[
{
"docid": "819ebf9d4c042f3f6513c710753e0994",
"text": "\"The key term you're looking for is \"\"purchasing power parity\"\", which considers the local prices of goods and services when making comparisons between countries. For example, you can look up the GDP by PPP per capita to get a sense of much people on average incomes can buy in each country. Of course, average incomes may not be too relevant to your own specific circumstances, but nonetheless you can look at the PPP data itself to figure out how to translate specific numbers between two currencies. However, note that the \"\"basket\"\" of goods used to calculate this measure itself has a significant impact on the results. Comparing prices of food and electronic equipment respectively will often give very different answers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5e68cfd5310448c6914a2932f772bb8",
"text": "\"But what if I am getting paid salary from a source in India? In other words, it may be that in India a research assistant at a college on average earns a third of what a research assistant like me earns here in US. In that case, even if my cost of living there is much less, so is my salary. There are sites that provide a good guidance for what the average salary for an profession with x years of experience would be. Of course some would get paid more than average. So you can try and make a logic, if in US say you are being paid more than average, you would be paid more than average elsewhere. Plus If moving from Developed to Developing country, one has the Advantage of positive pedigree bias. There are also websites that would give the Purchasing Power Parity for quite a few currency pairs. The Real difficulty to find is whether the Lifestyle you have in a specific country would be similar in other country. If you compare like for like it becomes slightly skewed. If you compare equivalence, then can you adjust. A relevant example my friend in US had a Independent Bungalow in US. It was with Basement and attic, 2 levels of living space with 4 bedroom. He shifted to India and got a great salary compared to normal Indian salary. However this kind of house in India in Bangalore would be affordable only to CEO's of top companies. So is living in a 3 room apartment fine? There are multiple such aspects. Drinking a Starbucks coffee couple of times a day is routine for quite a few in US. In India this would be considered luxury. A like for equivalent comparison is \"\"One drinks 3-4 mugs of Coffee\"\" in US, and average Indian drinks \"\"Tea/Coffee 3-4 mugs\"\". In India the local Tea / Coffee would be Rs 10 - Rs 20. A Starbucks would come with starting price of Rs 150. The same applies to food. A McBurger in India would be around Rs 100. The Indian equivalent Wada Pav is for Rs 10. A Sub Way would be Rs 150. A Equivalent Mumbai Sandwich around Rs 25. I personally am picky about food, so it doesn't matter where I go, I can only eat specific things, which means I spend a huge amount of money if I am outside of India. When I was in US, I couldn't afford a maid, driver or any help. In India I have 2 maids, a cooking maid and a driver. Plus I get plumber, electrician, window cleaner, and all the help without costing me much. Things that I absolutely can't dream in US. My colleague in UK preferred to stay in a specific locality as it has a very good Church. So if its important, one may find few good ones in India if one is Roman Catholic, if one follows Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, tough luck. Citizenship: Does it matter ... A foreign national may never get an Indian citizenship. Children don't qualify either unless both parents are Indian. Health Care: Again is quite different. One may feel Health care in US is not good or very expensive ... but there are multiple aspects of this. So in essence its very broad there is traffic, cleanliness, climate, culture, etc ... PS: A research assistant in India is poorly paid, because colleges don't have funds. Research in fundamental science is quite low. Industry to university linkages are primitive and now where close to what we have in US.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa83c422dfc7b4bab93c96c31558ad31",
"text": "\"I am admittedly not giving a scientific or mathematical analysis here, just giving my anecdotal take on what I've lived through. I don't know if my assessment of 'tripled' is even accurate, just that there's a palpable sense of things being a lot more expensive & it just seems to me that the cost of living has gone up quite a bit for average people from what it once was, especially considering most of us now have cable bills, internet costs and in my case several different cell phone bills for different members of the family. I realize these are not necessities but they are important things that most people are now expected to have. I didn't mean to imply that we've had \"\"insane\"\" inflation & I understand that these things are mathematically measured as both Core inflation and CPI and by these measures things have held pretty steady. It just seems to me that these sorts of indexes have not yet taken a lot of things into account regarding the realities of modern day living and their resultant expenses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f426109acac2cb990efbc3b3026274f",
"text": "You work backwards. A top-down budget. i.e. 'bottom-up' is to list what you want, and perhaps find that there's nothing left for retirement savings, top-down divides from your gross income down to each expense. Say you make $60000/yr, $5000/mo. $1250 is about what you can spend on housing. You can go with the smallest apartment you can tolerate, a tiny 2 BR with roommate, or get the biggest apartment or house you can afford for this money. In the end, this question may be closed as 'opinion-based.' It's not simple to answer and it's more about your own preferences. Quality of life is more than your house/apt size. I've known people who lived in tiny spaces, and used public transportation, but took 3 week-long trips each year. Others who lived in big houses, drove fancy cars, and somehow when their first kid entered high school, realized they had saved nothing for college. Decide on your own priorities and tilt the budget to reflect that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "074ac03b0e291f45a9afc4600833e3a7",
"text": "True economy consists in always making the income exceed the out-go. Wear the old clothes a little longer if necessary; dispense with the new pair of gloves; mend the old dress; live on plainer food if need be; so that, under all circumstances, unless some unforeseen accident occurs, there will be a margin in favor of the income. A penny here, and a dollar there, placed at interest, goes on accumulating, and in this way the desired result is attained. It requires some training, perhaps, to accomplish this economy, but when once used to it, you will find there is more satisfaction in rational saving, than in irrational spending. Here is a recipe which I recommend; I have found it to work an excellent cure for extravagance, and especially for mistaken economy: When you find that you have no surplus at the end of the year, and yet have a good income, I advise you to take a few sheets of paper and form them into a book and mark down every item of expenditure. Post it every day or week in two columns, one headed “necessaries” or even “comforts,” and the other headed “luxuries,” and you will find that the latter column will be double, treble, and frequently ten times greater than the former. The real comforts of life cost but a small portion of what most of us can earn. Dr. Franklin says “it is the eyes of others and not our own eyes which ruin us. If all the world were blind except myself I should not care for fine clothes or furniture.” It is the fear of what Mrs. Grundy may say that keeps the noses of many worthy families to the grindstone. In America many persons like to repeat “we are all free and equal,” but it is a great mistake in more senses than one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b01c6e1d2a78ef5f00f3ba1ab810f5f4",
"text": "\"To begin, I'm not sure you understand what COL refers to. It's what you spend, not what you bring in. Let's say Bob makes 60k in some midwest town, but spends 30k for living. If his salary and his cost of living both increase at the same rate, let's say they both double, this means Bob now makes 120k but spends 60k. He now saves double what he would have before. That 30k extra saved is 30k extra saved. His purchasing power has now gone greatly up, especially in respect to housing outside of an expensive area like the valley. For one, let me clear this up - SF, the city itself, is expensive. I'm talking more generally about the bay area, and silicon valley as a whole. Most tech jobs from the big tech companies that we think of as \"\"the bay\"\" are not in SF. they are in mountain view, Sunnyvale, and that area. So this might explain some of our disagreements. Most people who work for large tech companies understand they have a decision to make - live in the city proper, pay a lot more than the greater valley, use transit into work (all of the giants have regular shuttles in), but get to love a more \"\"hip\"\" life, or be more conservative in the valley, where rental prices are on par with NYC. In talking to a lot of people who work for the big companies, they know this. Younger folks who want to live the city life pay the premium, but by far and wide they live outside of it, where it is closer to work, and they take the rail up for weekends out with buddies. I'm still not sure where you are getting a doubling of the COL in the valley versus outside. Yes, housing as a single item is going to be a person's largest expense. But all the rest of their expenses are not going to see a similar increase. It's also important to remember that saving 10% of 60 v 10% of 120 is significantly different. Lots of people take jobs in the valley, are able to save vastly larger amounts of cash, and then leave. In my calculations I evaluated the COL markup to be ~30% for the valley for a 200k job. That is, I spend maybe 50k of my earning on all living expenses in the Midwest (in a downtown, nice area), and would expect I'd pay about 70k for the same standard in the valley. But I'd be saving a shitton more. I've done the math, I'm not here to argue with someone who just googled SF cost of living searching for the answers I want. I've talked to actual people out there. I appreciate your passion for this, but your 100% increase in COL estimate is simply wrong. But then again, it depends on how you live and where you live in your current situation. I live in a large midwest city, actually in the city itself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b9c926e47c626abd0e033e310e063e1",
"text": "Let an app do it for you, group items and see where you spend your money. One example: https://www.tinkapp.com/en/ Should provide a starting point for showing income vs expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7089553b51cc256baf371ae747cacfe",
"text": "The long-run goal is to eliminate poverty through wealth creation. If that makes for some weird new social interactions, I'd say that's a reasonable cost. I mention comparing to earlier periods simply as a measure of progress to determine whether or not there is a problem that needs correction, such as a specific group in society experiencing real wage stagnation, or truly anemic growth rates relative to earlier periods. It's the slope of the trend line for each group that I'd be worried about, where linear or exponential is good, and logarithmic should indicate a potential crisis. Ultimately, I believe that it's not a persons absolute circumstances that matter, but the rate at which those circumstances are improving throughout their lives that most strongly affects their subjective well-being (but that's just my theory). As for real estate costs, you're absolutely correct that this is a problem, but it's as easily explainable problem. Supply is artificially constrained in most of the US due to the need for explicit government permission (in the form of building permits and zoning laws) in order to build new units. Basic economics says that when supply is artificially restricted, prices will rise. In areas where government is restrictive, such as San Francisco, prices rise sharply. In places where government is more permissive, like Houston, prices remain much more reasonable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed757364d1d17b0da0f0cf424818d2b0",
"text": "Yea, so they mention household and income....Am I supposed to count both my spouse income and my own? Because if that's true...then I'm part of the 1% at 27, yet it sure as shit doesn't feel like it.",
"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": "26ce60fef4f08824a11abf3f8009ba3b",
"text": "The IRS defines income quite specifically. On the topic What is Taxable and Nontaxable Income, they note: You can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. This section discusses many kinds of income that are taxable or nontaxable. It includes discussions on employee wages and fringe benefits, and income from bartering, partnerships, S corporations, and royalties. Bartering, or giving someone wages (or similar) in something other than currency (or some other specifically defined things, like fringe benefits), is taxed at fair market value: Bartering Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. For additional information, Refer to Tax Topic 420 - Bartering Income and Barter Exchanges. Bartering is more specifically covered in Topic 420 - Bartering Income: You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return. More details about income in general beyond the above articles is available in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income. It goes into great detail about different kinds of income. In your example, you'd have to calculate the fair market value of an avocado, and then determine how much cash-equivalent you were paid in. The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards. The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value. While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant. Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency. If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income. Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cb015bc77c1ea1f1c8ff282b7c89e35",
"text": "This doesn't explain the methodology used, but it appears to only include national taxes on wage income for the middle class. Do these European countries have the equivalent of state and local taxes? Do they have sales tax or VAT? Property taxes? The American tax system is uniquely cumbersome and complicated to the point where even tax experts don't understand all of it. I highly doubt whichever method was used in this study accurately represents the tax burden on Americans, but I can't say for sure since that article doesn't share its methodology.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adacca83dbfb4de58aba2e034d7e2a54",
"text": "It sounds like you're mixing a simple checkbook register with double-entry bookkeeping. Do you need a double-entry level of rigor? Otherwise, why not have two columns, one for income (like a paycheck) and one for expenses (like paying a cable bill)? Then add up both columns and then take the difference of the sums to get your increase or decrease for the time period. If you want to break up income and expenses further, then you can do that too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd1a5f5aeb95f5ac87bf992d454e1c0",
"text": "\"While this does fall under the \"\"All-inclusive income\"\" segment of GI (gross income), there are two questions that come up. I invested in a decentralized bitcoin business and earned about $230 this year in interest from it Your wording is confusing here only due to how bitcoin works.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68213ebec764c524f77fdb1c34b1d3a4",
"text": "I guess you could figure it out based on your total income, and the total number of hours it takes to generate that income if you want to do it simply. Count you job, side work, soda can deposits, and saving earned directly by effort (coupons and deal shopping) But the real answer to the question is understanding Opportunity Cost and what you could be doing instead. The problem with opportunity cost is the value system that judges the worth of the other opportunities is a deeply intrinsic factor that cannot be judged by anybody else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904291c8790bd890b5644dd82a6e17d8",
"text": "Your problem is one that has challenged many people. As you said there are two aspects to balancing a budget, reducing expenses or increasing income. And you state that you have done all the cost-cutting that you can find. Looking at ways to increase your income is a good way to balance your budget. How big is your problem? Do you need to find another $100/month, or do you need $1000/month? There are many part-time jobs you could obtain (fast food, retail, grocery), you could obtain a sales-job (cars, real estate, even working for a recruiting firm) where you could connect buyers and sellers. If your need is $100/month, a part-time job on weekends would fill the gap. When I was trying to solve my budget problems a few years ago, I thought that I needed to increase my income. And I did increase my income. But then I realized that my expenses were too high. And I re-evaluated my priorities. I challenge you to revisit your expenses. Often we assume that we need things that we really cannot afford. Consider a few of your (possible) expenses, My problems included mortgage debt, auto loans, high utilities, high car insurance, too much spending on kids activities, and a few other problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7176e7804657cee356c2c689025bb444",
"text": "In comparing housing to investing in a stock market, the author claims housing is a poor investment because houses depreciate. He's forgetting about the land component. The improvement on the land is only a portion of the value, and it's the only part that depreciates. In markets where the prices have risen significantly the value is largely in the land. Land has a finite supply, which is even more evident when we are looking at land located where people actually want to live. While strong banking controls kept Canada from suffering the same crash in the second half of the 2000's; availability of land where people actually want to live is likely responsible for a lot of the divergence between the US and Canada. Most Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the border between the two countries; as the weather makes living more northern undesirable. The US has lots of available land in places with a better climate than a lot of Canada. Sure, there's some highly desirable places to live in the US where prices have skyrocketed; but the scarcity of desirable land affects all of Canada and is not going to go away.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7b1c6c67d0136a9c35b9f88900c21ef1
|
How to fill the IRS Offer In Compromise with an underwater asset?
|
[
{
"docid": "d3e856d7e6912de3291f0bf813915525",
"text": "\"You're supposed to be filling form 433-A. Vehicles are on line 18. You will fill there the current fair value of the car and the current balance on the loans. The last column is \"\"equity\"\", which in your case will indeed be a negative number. The \"\"value\"\" is what the car is worth. The \"\"equity\"\" is what the car is worth to you. IRS uses the \"\"equity\"\" value to calculate your solvency. Any time you fill a form to the IRS - read the instructions carefully, for each line and line. If in doubt - talk to a professional licensed in your state. I'm not a professional, and this is not a tax advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "102706bf51207ed9bb9cb202b105b87e",
"text": "If you have both consumer debt and IRS debt, you can file Chapter 7 bankruptcy to get rid of all of it. The trick is your taxes have to be at least 3 years old from the due date in order to be considered for bankruptcy. So newer taxes, like 2010 and on, can't be discharged yet (and earlier ones may not be yet, there are rules which toll the time) You'll definitely want to talk to a bankruptcy attorney in your area who focusing on discharge in tax debts. You may be able to kill two birds with one stone. My other concern is are you current? Typically people routinely run up a new debt when trying to settle up on 9old debt. So the OIC route may be a waste of your time. Also, $6000 isn't a lot of money, so there's not a lot of room to negotiate down. It's all how you fill out the 656-OIC. I've seen way to many people not fill it out incorrectly. The IRS has a limited amount of time to collect on a debt, so if there are old taxes, you may be better off getting into CNC status, which it seems like you would qualify for and let the debt expire on your own. That may be another viable solution. Unfortunately, this is really complicated to get the best result. And good tax debt attorneys fees start at the amount of taxes you owe! So that's not really cost effective to hire one.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6027cb737ec41a6e7f3c7e28a65a29cf",
"text": "Unfortunately, it's a simple 'no'. Once the IRS has your money, you need to wait until early next year to settle up. He can increase his allowances via form W4, and have less money withheld from pay checks the rest of this year, but no chance for a lump sum return before tax time. For sake of a comprehensive answer, early withdrawals are subject to a 10% penalty along with regular income tax. It sounds like the son is in the 15% bracket, and a total 25% would have been the right number to choose.",
"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": "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": "9230b874441939256ea7912de4cf896b",
"text": "\"No, you cannot. ISO are given to you in your capacity as an employee (that's why it is \"\"qualified\"\"), while your IRA is not an employee. You cannot transfer property to the IRA, so you cannot transfer them to the IRA once you paid for them as well. This is different from non-qualified stock options (discussed in this question), which I believe technically can be granted to IRA. But as Joe suggests in his answer there - there may be self-dealing issues and you better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) if this is something you're considering to do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fe426c439a37a460272b846aba18e5c",
"text": "\"If he DOES get money, the minimum amount of time will be 20-25 years from now. The money comes from the IRS and has to be signed off by a bunch of elected folks AND has to be pushed by the individual agent. Everybody will see multi-millions as \"\"too much\"\" and opt for something reasonable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "730f045c86fb1fd0f70292b5f620bc95",
"text": "\"I'm not 100% certain on boats, since they aren't typically sold for a gain, but the tax base of an asset is typically the cost of the asset plus the cost of any improvements, so your $15,000 gain looks right (check with a CPA to be certain, though, if you can). Your \"\"cost basis\"\" would be $50,000 + $25,000 = $75,000, and your net gain would be $90,000 - $75,000 = $15,000. The result is the same, but the arithmetic is organized a little differently. I am fairly confident you cannot include your time in the \"\"cost of improvements\"\". If you incorporated and \"\"paid yourself\"\" for the time, then the payment would be considered income (and taxed), if it was even allowed. Depending on your tax bracket that may be a WORSE option for you. You can look at it this way - you only pay the tax on the $15k gain versus paying someone else $15k to do the labor.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4a1738922520dca65133b950a2f75df",
"text": "\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \"\"substantially identical\"\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \"\"substantially identical\"\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \"\"deep in the money\"\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\"\"A Primer on Wash Sales\"\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \"\"play it safe\"\" position: \"\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\"\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \"\"hell no\"\" to \"\"only if blatant.\"\" If you can get an \"\"official\"\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6eb756cc10517e78138928fe576fa8",
"text": "\"Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means \"\"irregular deposit.\"\" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (\"\"give my money to a friend for safekeeping\"\") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (\"\"how can I keep my money safe\"\"). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is \"\"contract\"\". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for \"\"safekeeping,\"\" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss. Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily \"\"safe\"\" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the \"\"irregular\"\" part of the concept of \"\"irregular deposit\"\" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for \"\"safekeeping\"\" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and \"\"withdraw\"\" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier. And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides \"\"what you meant the money to be.\"\" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8f2a0b3957abc9cff84a66aee8918af",
"text": "\"First - Welcome to Money.SE. You gave a lot of detail, and it's tough to parse out the single question. Actually, you have multiple issues. $1300 is what you need to pay the tax? In the 25% bracket plus 10% penalty, you have a 65% net amount. $1300/.65 = Exactly $2000. You withdraw $2000, have them (the IRA holder) withhold $700 in federal tax, and you're done. All that said, don't do it. Nathan's answer - payment plan with IRS - is the way to go. You've shared with us a important issue. Your budget is running too tight. We have a post here, \"\"the correct order of investing\"\" which provides a great guideline that applies to most visitors. You are missing the part that requires a decent sized emergency fund. In your case, calling it that, may be a misnomer, as the tax bill isn't an unexpected emergency, but something that should have been foreseeable. We have had a number of posts here that advocate the paid in full house. And I always respond that the emergency fund comes first. With $70K of income, you should have $35K or so of liquidity, money readily available. Tax due in April shouldn't be causing you this grief. Please read that post I linked and others here to help you with the budgeting issue. Last - You are in an enviable position, A half million dollars, no mortgage, mid 40s. Easily doing better than most. So, please forgive the soapbox tone of the above, it was just my \"\"see, that's what I'm talking about\"\" moment from my tenure here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca4f820b9bdb5a53b055950641355db2",
"text": "Do not try to deposit piece wise. Either use the system in complete transparence, or do not use it at all. The fear of having your bank account frozen, even if you are in your rights, is justified. In any case, I don't advise you to put in bank before reaching IRS. Also keep all the proof that you indeed contacted them. (Recommended letter and copy of any form you submit to them) Be ready to also give those same documents to your bank to proove your good faith. If they are wrong, you'll be considered in bad faith until you can proove otherwise, without your bank account. Do not trust their good faith, they are not bad people, but very badly organized with too much power, so they put the burden of proof on you just because they can. If it is too burdensome for you then keep cash or go bitcoin. (but the learning curve to keep so much money in bitcoin secure against theft is high) You should declare it in this case anyway, but at least you don't have to fear having your money blocked arbitrarily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817",
"text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1c755a38f3d7640be1c7375a29c4961",
"text": "I wouldn't do this. There is a chance that your check could get lost/misdirected/misapplied, etc. Then you would need to deal with the huge bureaucracy to try to get it fixed while interest and penalties pile up. What you can do is have the IRS withdraw the money themselves by providing the rounting number and account number of your bank. This should work whether is it a traditional brick and mortar bank or an online bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3daf02c2828ef1b7739fe35ac39d2e0",
"text": "\"After much research, the answer is \"\"a\"\": recompute the tax return using the installment sales method because (1) the escrow payment was subject to \"\"substantial restrictions\"\" by virtue of the escrow being structured to pay buyer's indemnification claims and (2) the taxpayer did not correctly elect out of the installment method by reporting the entire gain including the escrow payments on the return in the year of the transaction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b271a049ae22fd6bdb2c111d0e1dc938",
"text": "\"Here's what's going to happen: At the last minute, he's going to \"\"discover\"\" that for some reason first you must send him $10,000. He'll tell you not to worry, as he's still going to send you $40,000... now $50,000. In fact, he's going to tell you that he'll send you $60,000 and tell you to keep the $10,000 as a \"\"finders fee\"\". Then you will send him, $10,000 and he will walk away with your $10,000. You'll never hear from him again. This is a very common scam. The best way to avoid it is not to tell him you won't do it for IRS reasons. The best thing to do is to stop accepting email from him and (optionally) report him to law enforcement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c6a8eb3d7260ce7cff353c73588f5f2",
"text": "\"Your assertion that you will not be selling anything is at odds with the idea that you will be doing tax loss harvesting. Tax loss harvesting always involves some selling (you sell stocks that have fallen in price and lock in the capital losses, which gives you a break on your taxes). If you absolutely prohibit your advisor from selling, then you will not be able to do tax loss harvesting (in that case, why are you using an advisor at all?). Tax loss harvesting has nothing to do with your horizon nor the active/passive difference, really. As a practical matter, a good tax loss harvesting plan involves mechanically selling losers and immediately putting the money in another stock with more-or-less similar risk so your portfolio doesn't change much. In this way you get a stable portfolio that performs just like a static portfolio but gives you a tax benefit each year. The IRS officially prohibits this practice via the \"\"wash sale rule\"\" that says you can't buy a substantially identical asset within a short period of time. However, though two stocks have similar risk, they are not generally substantially similar in a legal sense, so the IRS can't really beat you in court and they don't try. Basically you can't just buy the same stock again. The roboadvisor is advertising that they will perform this service, keeping your portfolio pretty much static in terms of risk, in such a way that your tax benefit is maximized and you don't run afoul of the IRS.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c3974a64b0c87e01abfcfec402042842
|
What will be the capital gains tax after we sell a rental home?
|
[
{
"docid": "691f379e386fc1183176cdae0adf3072",
"text": "This will be a complex issue and you will need to sit down with a professional to work through the issues: When the house was put up for rent the initial year tax forms should have required that the value of the house/property be calculated. This number was then used for depreciation of the house. This was made more complex based on any capital improvements. If the house wasn't the first he owned, then capital gains might have been rolled over from previous houses which adds a layer of complexity. Any capital improvements while the house was a rental will also have to be resolved because those were also depreciated since they were placed in service. The deprecation will be recaptured and will be a part of the calculation. You have nowhere near enough info to make a calculation at this time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a286e4563e4d15f6300f7e8ac67849fd",
"text": "\"Yes, you're correct and yes they will. Note that it will be considered as \"\"sale\"\" with gains being taxable income to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e92a6e17ba78551b7fd1703fae444c",
"text": "\"Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any \"\"Income tax\"\" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under \"\"Taxable money for FY Income tax\"\"? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain. Will the \"\"Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back\"\" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay \"\"Dividend Distribution Tax\"\"? Paid by the company. What is \"\"Capital Gains\"\"? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eed532144938a0446170198dc5d2e6cc",
"text": "I don't see anything in this forum on the leverage aspect, so I'll toss that out for discussion. Using generic numbers, say you make a $10k down payment on a $100,000 house. The house appreciates 3% per year. First year, it's $103,000. Second year, $106090, third it's 109,272.70. (Assuming straight line appreciation.) End of three years, you've made $9,272.70 on your initial $10,000 investment, assuming you have managed the property well enough to have a neutral or positive cash flow. You can claim depreciation of the property over those rental years, which could help your tax situation. Of course, if you sell, closing costs will be a big factor. Plus... after three years, the dreaded capital gains tax jumps in as mentioned earlier, unless you do a 1031 exchange to defer it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2298623d7f59f87288ce808fd76d4706",
"text": "The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6474f9e233c80bd3d4a1c35ff0746bcd",
"text": "Your question is best asked of a tax expert, not random people on the internet. Such an expert will help you ask the right questions. For example you did not point out the country or state in which you live. That matters. First point is that you will not pay tax on 60K, its expensive to transact real estate, so your net proceeds will be closer to 40K. Also you can probably the deduct the costs of improvements. You implied that you really like this rental property. If that is the case, why would you sell...ever? This home could be a central part of your financial independence plan. So keep it until you die. IIRC when it passes to your heirs, a new cost basis is formed thereby not passing the tax burden onto them. (Assuming the property is located in the US.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8458e6ebcc66911b291d37d15bc50a86",
"text": "To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d7423ee99001152e36ba7d033e5edef",
"text": "When you sell the spec home, you will owe taxes on the sales price minus the cost of the home, including the land, materials, paid labor, and other expenses. The fact that you pay for this with with the inheritance in the money market account won't affect the taxes you owe when you sell the spec house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccee1d130a4cefa6b31916dd78b4f0b3",
"text": "\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "473b89d88dbe46c26fc30c3a059e5370",
"text": "In no ways. Both will be reported to the members on their K1 in the respective categories (or if it is a single member LLC - directly to the individual tax return). The capital gains will flow to your personal Schedule D, and the business loss to your personal Schedule C. On your individual tax return you can deduct up to 3K of capital losses from any other income. Business loss is included in the income if it is active business, for passive businesses (like rental) there are limitations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0924928f7f5f7194bd15333e140dbae",
"text": "\"In 2014 the IRS announced that it published guidance in Notice 2014-21. In that notice, the answer to the first question describes the general tax treatment of virtual currency: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. As it's property like any other, capital gains if and when you sell are taxed. As with any capital gains, you're taxed on the \"\"profit\"\" you made, that is the \"\"proceeds\"\" (how much you got when you sold) minus your \"\"basis\"\" (how much you paid to get the property that you sold). Until you sell, it's just an asset (like a house, or a share of stock, or a rare collectible card) that doesn't require any reporting. If your initial cryptocurrency acquisition was through mining, then this section of that Notice applies: Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities? A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income. That is to say, when it was mined the market value of the amount generated should have been included in income (probably on either Line 21 Other Income, or on Schedule C if it's from your own business). At that point, the market value would also qualify as your basis. Though I doubt there'd be a whole lot of enforcement action for not amending your 2011 return to include $0.75. (Technically if you find a dollar bill on the street it should be included in income, but usually the government cares about bigger fish than that.) It sounds like your basis is close enough to zero that it's not worth trying to calculate a more accurate value. Since your basis couldn't be less than zero, there's no way that using zero as your basis would cause you to pay less tax than you ought, so the government won't have any objections to it. One thing to be careful of is to document that your holdings qualify for long-term capital gains treatment (held longer than a year) if applicable. Also, as you're trading in multiple cryptocurrencies, each transaction may count as a \"\"sale\"\" of one kind followed by a \"\"purchase\"\" of the other kind, much like if you traded your Apple stock for Google stock. It's possible that \"\"1031 like kind exchange\"\" rules apply, and in June 2016 the American Institute of CPAs sent a letter asking about it (among other things), but as far as I know there's been no official IRS guidance on the matter. There are also some related questions here; see \"\"Do altcoin trades count as like-kind exchanges?\"\" and \"\"Assuming 1031 Doesn't Apply To Cryptocurrency Trading\"\". But if in fact those exchange rules do not apply and it is just considered a sale followed by a purchase, then you would need to report each exchange as a sale with that asset's basis (probably $0 for the initial one), and proceeds of the fair market value at the time, and then that same value would be the basis of the new asset you're purchasing. Using a $0 basis is how I treat my bitcoin sales, though I haven't dealt with other cryptocurrencies. As long as all the USD income is being reported when you get USD, I find it unlikely you'll run into a lot of trouble, even if you technically were supposed to report the individual transactions when they happened. Though, I'm not in charge of IRS enforcement, and I'm not aware of any high-profile cases, so it's hard to know anything for sure. Obviously, if there's a lot of money involved, you may want to involve a professional rather than random strangers on the Internet. You could also try contacting the IRS directly, as believe-it-or-not, their job is in fact helping you to comply with the tax laws correctly. Also, there are phone numbers at the end of Notice 2014-21 of people which might be able to provide further guidance, including this statement: The principal author of this notice is Keith A. Aqui of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting). For further information about income tax issues addressed in this notice, please contact Mr. Aqui at (202) 317-4718\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "398402f51ec457500408822627b1c4f2",
"text": "Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ab357979737b8b271ff89429bd966c3",
"text": "\"I was told by the lawyers there was no tax consequence because the two numbers were the same. That is correct. However, a tax professional tells me that since the start-up stock was \"\"realized\"\" there invokes a taxable event now. That is correct. I'm now led to believe I owe cap-gains tax on the entire 4 year vest this year That is incorrect. You owe capital gains tax on the sale of your startup stock. Which is accidentally the exact same amount you \"\"paid\"\" for the new unvested stocks. There's no taxable event with regards to the new stocks because the amount you paid for them was the amount you got for the old stocks. But you did sell the old stocks, and that is a taxable event.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58a27b9898fc1b6ef26969f3623b4ee2",
"text": "Ah, I did some more research and apparently Rental Income is considered Passive Income, and as such the IRS does not allow a net loss to exist, but you can carry the loss over into the next year. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc425.html Generally, losses from passive activities that exceed the income from passive activities are disallowed for the current year. You can carry forward disallowed passive losses to the next taxable year. A similar rule applies to credits from passive activities. So in the event in a loss on my rental business activity, I simply pay no tax on it, and deduct the remainder in income in 2017 from taxes. I don't make any changes to my Consulting income at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8394b41dc5e16d17c616139c687e014c",
"text": "If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account. Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable. One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly. The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property. I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero). Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting. Run the numbers. Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer. It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation. Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side. Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting. Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side). Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area. Assuming that the numbers add up to buying: buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c631614d19b6880eef1e66e950b7b172",
"text": "Loans are not taxable events. The equity you took out is not income. It's a loan, and you pay it back with interest. You pay taxes on the capital gain of the home when you sell it. The tax does not take into account any mortgages, HELOCs, or other loans secured by the house. Instead the tax is calculated based on the price you sold it for, minus the price you bought it for, which is known as the capital gain. You can exclude $250k of that gain for a single person, $500k for a married couple. (There are a few other wrikles as well.) That would be true regardless of the loan balance at the time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ca9ccbfee61283a0817aa09982ff9c2c
|
Can you explain the mechanism of money inflation?
|
[
{
"docid": "371e8f2e82be060229ed7fa33316d364",
"text": "The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f791ea47391e980f4185fbb60046f1e9",
"text": "Assuming constant velocity, inflation is caused by the difference between the growth in the money supply and growth in real output. In other words, this means that the money supply growing faster than output is expanding causes inflation to arise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12c8e47442cbc448841fe41ffb3cdb45",
"text": "In simple terms, inflation is a result of too much money chasing too few goods, i.e. there is an imbalance between demand and supply. The demand exceeds the supply. With all other things being constant it leads to increase in price, i.e. inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfc8159b5632cc4cc11c53b4744a9d71",
"text": "I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9aabe7143c93b50c64bded075fdfaca7",
"text": "Your question asks about the mechanism of money inflation - not price inflation. Money inflation occurs when new money is introduced into an economy. The value of money is subject to supply and demand like other items in the economy. The effects of new money can be difficult to predict. One of the results of additional money can be rising prices. These rising prices can be concentrated in one particular area - stocks, homes, food - or they can be spread out over many items. This is true regardless of the form of money being inflated - gold, silver, or paper money. There were times in history when large discoveries of gold and silver were found that caused prices to rise as a result. Of course, the large discoveries of gold and silver pale in comparison to the gigantic discoveries by central banks of new fiat currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56a2c9dd60a135526a28f93fea2b388f",
"text": "An economy produces goods and services and people use money to pay for those goods and services. Money has value because people believe that they can buy and sell goods and services with it in that economy. How much the value of money is, is determined by how much money there is in comparison to goods and services (supply and demand). In most economies it is the job of the federal/national reserve bank to ensure that prices stay stable (ie the relationship of goods and services to how much money there is is stable); as this is necessary for a well running economy. The federal reserve bank does so by making more (printing, decreasing interest rates) or less (increasing interest rates) available to the economy. To determine how much money needs to be in the economy to keep prices stable is incredibly hard as many factors have an impact: If the reserve bank gets it wrong and there is more money compared to goods and services than previous, prices will rise to compensate; this is inflation If it's the other way round is deflation. Since it is commonly regarded that deflation is much more destabilizing to an economy than inflation the reserve banks tend to err on the side of inflation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b5118f81051f23c2de558ebb01684b73",
"text": "\"Inflation is an attempt to measure how much less money is worth. It is a weighted average of some bundle of goods and services price's increase. Money's value is in what you can exchange it for, so higher prices means money is worth less. Monthly inflation is quoted either as \"\"a year, ending on that month\"\" or \"\"since the previous month\"\". As the values differ by more than a factor of 10, you can usually tell which one is being referred to when they say \"\"inflation in August was 0.4%, a record high\"\" or \"\"inflation in August was 3.6%\"\". You do need some context of the state of the economy, and how surprised the people talking about the numbers are. Sometimes they refer to inflation since the last month, and then annualize it, which adds to the confusion. \"\"Consumer Inflation\"\"'s value depends on what the basket of goods is, and what you define as the same \"\"good\"\". Is a computer this year the same as the last? If the computer is 10x faster, do you ignore that, or factor it in? What basket do you use? The typical monthly consumables purchased by a middle class citizen? By a poor citizen? By a rich citizen? A mixture, and if so which mixture? More detailed inflation figures can focus on inflation facing each quntile of the population by household income, split durable goods from non-durable goods from services, split wage from non-wage inflation, ignore volatile things like food and energy, etc. Inflation doesn't directly cause prices to raise; instead it is a measure of how much raise in prices happened. It can easily be a self-fullfilling prophesy, as inflation expectations can lead to everyone automatically increasing the price they charge for everything (wages, goods, etc). Inflation can be viewed as a measurement of the \"\"cost of holding cash\"\". At 10% inflation per year, holding a million dollars in cash for a year costs you 100,000$ in buying power. At 1% inflation it costs 10,000$. At 0.1% inflation, 1000$. Inflation of 10% in one year, followed by 10% the next, adds up to 1.1*1.1-1 = 21% inflation over the two years. For low inflation numbers this acts a lot like adding; the further from 0% you get the more the lower-order terms make the result larger. 1% inflation for two years adds up to 2.01%, 10% over two years 21%, 100% over two years 300%, 1000% over two years 12000%, etc. (and yes, some places suffer 1000% inflation)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f573cc1a292826d1bce978f3d56e90e9",
"text": "\"Sensitive topic ;) Inflation is a consequence of the mismatch between supply and demand. In an ideal world the amount of goods available would exactly match the demand for those goods. We don't live in an ideal world. One example of oversupply is dollar stores where you can buy remainders from companies that misjudged demand. Most recently we've seen wheat prices rise as fires outside Moscow damaged the harvest and the Russian government banned exports. And that introduces the danger of inflation. Inflation is a signal, like the pain you feel after an injury. If you simply took a painkiller you may completely ignore a broken leg until gangrene took your life. Governments sometimes \"\"ban\"\" inflation by fixing prices. Both the Zimbabwean and Venezuelan governments have tried this recently. The consequence of that is goods become unavailable as producers refuse to create supply for less than the cost of production. As CrimonsX pointed out, governments do desperately want to avoid deflation as much as they want to avoid hyperinflation. There is a \"\"correct\"\" level and that has resulted in the monetary policy called \"\"Inflation targetting\"\" where central banks attempt to manage inflation into a target range (usually around 2% to 6%). The reason is simply that limited inflation drives investment and consumption. With a guaranteed return on investment people with cash will lend it to people with ideas. Consumers will buy goods today if they fear that the price will rise tomorrow. If prices fall (as they have done during the two decades of deflation in Japan) then the result is lower levels of investment and employment as companies cut production capacity. If prices rise to quickly (as in Zimbabwe and Venezuela) then people cannot save enough or earn enough and so their wealth is drained away. Add to this the continual process of innovation and you see how difficult it is to manage inflation at all. Innovation can result in increased efficiency which can reduce prices. It can also result in a new product which is sufficiently unique to allow predatory pricing (the Apple iPhone, new types of medicines, and so on). The best mechanism we have for figuring out where money should be invested and who is the best recipient of any good is the price mechanism. Inflation is the signal that investors need to learn how best to manage their efforts. We hide from it at our peril.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0bac9a98e7ae3f01a8f47c2fd878128",
"text": "\"Krugman argues (and I agree with him on this one) that this is a telltale sign that the US is in a [liquidity trap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap). Basically interest rates are near 0 and the banks are very risk adverse right now, so they sit on reserves instead of lending them out. In this scenario, the government \"\"printing\"\" money has no effect on inflation (or much of anything) because it just sits in bank reserves. A more right wing economist might spin a different story though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b43cf3295733598b990a5018066188",
"text": "I was being sarcastic in response to you saying that hyperinflation happens every 30-50 years in a finance subreddit.. where the second lesson (right after time value of money) is that past results in general tell us nothing about the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c8e7acad35ce67b154a8450760f5891",
"text": "The fed has $2 trillion m0, and they loan out $1.9 trillion which then is eventually makes it way back to their banksagain, which they loan out another $1.8 trillion. The money goes to whoever they are loaning it to. The m0 is determined by the treasury directly printing 0's and 1s, and putting it into the Fed's bank which then they loan out. That's last part is what quantitative easing is. In short, the treasurys at the top, then the fed, then the branch banks, then corporations then the executives then the middle/lower class. Generally. When the treasury prints the money it trickles down. Problem is the higher up in the tree the more purchasing power you have, the lower the less. Comparing it to the spanish inquisition wouldn't be far off. Perhaps someday the government will let the people choose their own currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53f31679e3888eada41157f5cbe307b5",
"text": "Inflation is theft! It is caused when banks lend money that someone deposited, but still has claim to - called fractional reserve banking. On top of that, the Federal Reserve Bank (in the US) or the Central Bank of the currency (i.e. Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, etc.) can increase the monetary base by writing checks out of thin air to purchase debt, such as US Treasury Bonds. Inflation is not a natural phenomenon, it is completely man-made, and is caused solely by the two methods above. Inflation causes the business cycle. Lower interest rates caused by inflation cause long-term investment, even while savings is actually low and consumption is high. This causes prices to rise rapidly (the boom), and eventually, when the realization is made that the savings is not there to consume the products of the investment, you get the bust. I would encourage you to read or listen to The Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard - Great book, free online or via iTunes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46fc56b57f9a533b640a055c9c4e14ad",
"text": "It can take a while for inflation to seep into all aspects an economy and be felt by a consumer. Often, things that consumers use the most (like gasoline, wheat products, corn products, soy products, and sugar), are commodities spread across global markets with their own pricing which may be impacted by inflation in any given country. Also, inflation can be beneficial in some ways. A $500/month mortgage payment was a big deal 30 years ago, and now would be considered trivial. That's entirely because of inflation. Run-away inflation, where people are burning the currency to stay warm, is a different beast altogether. Be wary of people who conflate inflation, consumer pricing, and destructive currency devaluation, because they're not the same things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb5a410b9e36929b6216d4dcf618dd7e",
"text": "\"Disregarding the particular example and focusing on the actual questions: YES, definitely, the whole concept of \"\"pump and dump scheme\"\" refers to the many cases when this was intentionally done; Everything has a limit, but the limit can be quite high, especially if starting from a low value (a penny stock) and if the stock is low volume, then inflating ten or hundred times over a real value may be possible; and any value might be infinitely times overvalued for a company that turns out to have a value of zero. Yes, unless it's done very blatantly, you should expect that the \"\"inflator\"\" has much more experience in hiding the signs of inflation than the skill of average investor to notice them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5cb701b6cfca2174077ccca271b9fb1",
"text": "let's define inflation as an increase in m1 relative to the goods and services in the dollar economy. twist doesn't change m1 because it is sterilized. it does make tsys attractive since it supports their prices. that means de-risking flows are to the u.s. that means dollar goes up. that means gold goes down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c147ee4797cb064aa705248103a9bd3",
"text": "> *I fail to see how moderate inflation is a bad thing* The purchasing power of the currency slowly erodes, which means people's savings melt away. So people are forced to invest into something they don't really understand and something that is completely rigged, instead of just having their savings in a currency. [USD purchasing power](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg6FMpNGpM/Ta9ICcEMonI/AAAAAAAABBM/UoQG8vxtBX0/s1600/U.S.%2BDollar%2BPurchasing%2BPower.jpg).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685969de8f725ad8bdedd6839e4ee42c",
"text": "The general discussion of inflation centers on money as a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is impossible to discuss inflation without considering time, since it is a comparison between the balance between money and goods at two points in time. The whole point of using money, rather than bartering goods, is to have a medium of exchange. Having money, you are interested in the buying power of the money in general more than the relative price of a specific commodity. If some supply distortion causes a shortage of tobacco, or gasoline, or rental properties, the price of each will go up. However, if the amount of circulating money is doubled, the price of everything will be bid up because there is more money chasing the same amount of wealth. The persons who get to introduce the additional circulating money will win at the expense of those who already hold cash. Most of the public measures that are used to describe the economy are highly suspect. For example, during the 90s, the federal government ceased using a constant market basket when computing CPI, allowing substitutions. With this, it was no longer possible to make consistent comparisons over time. The so-called Core CPI is even worse, as it excludes food and energy, which is fine provided you don't eat anything or use any energy. Therefore, when discussing CPI, it is important to understand what exactly is being measured and how. Most published statistics understate inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc929fa4355c3dd27f4ca55f52c55e68",
"text": "\"And where does, say, Federal reserve, gets the money to buy those [2.5 trillions](https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124)? As for \"\"inflationary pressure\"\" - we don't really know it. Those money circulate between various financial instruments - so it is a very big question whether or not they spill out to affect consumer prices.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf8c5a3d72f99e79d0eee15526e05b00",
"text": "This is similar to the overnight lending rate set by the US Federal Reserve Board. If money is more expensive to borrow (higher interest rate) then less will be borrowed. Commercial and consumer loan rates follow up or down via market pressures (though possibly to a lesser extent in China) to adjust to the new central bank rate. Money creation is driven in part by fractional reserve banking: banks are required to have but a small percentage of deposits on hand in cash, and the rest can be lent out, deposited in another bank that has the same fractional reserve requirement, and that money can be lent out, etc. Higher interest rates dampen this lending activity, so inflation is toned down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad570b519c3229f5443070b43fbbf39",
"text": "You need a blog, or a thread of your own. I want to learn about this, and you appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough in your explanations. Would it be possible for you to make a thread, or reply, or pm explaining some of the pro's and cons of fiat money?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8ce32650569636dcdca8e383d661a03c
|
How to evaluate investment risk in practical terms
|
[
{
"docid": "80ccc6f1c6b0f9d238426febd4303db4",
"text": "\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "47949a3d96c655c0cb45eba95c6e912e",
"text": "\"This turned out be a lot longer than I expected. So, here's the overview. Despite the presence of asset allocation calculators and what not, this is a subjective matter. Only you know how much risk you are willing to take. You seem to be aware of one rule of thumb, namely that with a longer investing horizon you can stand to take on more risk. However, how much risk you should take is subject to your own risk aversion. Honestly, the best way to answer your questions is to educate yourself about the individual topics. There are just too many variables to provide neat, concise answers to such a broad question. There are no easy ways around this. You should not blindly rely on the opinions of others, but rather use your own judgment to asses their advice. Some of the links I provide in the main text: S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns 10-year index fund returns The Motley Fool Risk aversion Disclaimer: These are the opinions of an enthusiastic amateur. Why should I invest 20% in domestic large cap and 10% in developing markets instead of 10% in domestic large cap and 20% in developing markets? Should I invest in REITs? Why or why not? Simply put, developing markets are very risky. Even if you have a long investment horizon, you should pace yourself and not take on too much risk. How much is \"\"too much\"\" is ultimately subjective. Specific to why 10% in developing vs 20% in large cap, it is probably because 10% seems like a reasonable amount of your total portfolio to gamble. Another way to look at this is to consider that 10% as gone, because it is invested in very risky markets. So, if you're willing to take a 20% haircut, then by all means do that. However, realize that you may be throwing 1/5 of your money out the window. Meanwhile, REITs can be quite risky as investing in the real estate market itself can be quite risky. One reason is that the assets are very much fixed in place and thus can not be liquidated in the same way as other assets. Thus, you are subject to the vicissitudes of a relatively small market. Another issue is the large capital outlays required for most commercial building projects, thus typically requiring quite a bit of credit and risk. Another way to put it: Donald Trump made his name in real estate, but it was (and still is) a very bumpy ride. Yet another way to put it: you have to build it before they will come and there is no guarantee that they will like what you built. What mutual funds or index funds should I investigate to implement these strategies? I would generally avoid actively managed mutual funds, due to the expenses. They can seriously eat into the returns. There is a reason that the most mutual funds compare themselves to the Lipper average instead of something like the S&P 500. All of those costs involved in managing a mutual fund (teams of people and trading costs) tend to weigh down on them quite heavily. As the Motley Fool expounded on years ago, if you can not do better than the S&P 500, you should save yourself the headaches and simply invest in an S&P 500 index fund. That said, depending on your skill (and luck) picking stocks (or even funds), you may very well have been able to beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Of course, you may have also done a whole lot worse. This article discusses the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 60 years. As you can see, the past 10 years have been a very bumpy ride yielding in a negative return. Again, keep in mind that you could have done much worse with other investments. That site, Simple Stock Investing may be a good place to start educating yourself. I am not familiar with the site, so do not take this as an endorsement. A quick once-over of the material on the site leads me to believe that it may provide a good bit of information in readily digestible forms. The Motley Fool was a favorite site of mine in the past for the individual investor. However, they seem to have turned to the dark side, charging for much of their advice. That said, it may still be a good place to get started. You may also decide that it is worth paying for their advice. This blog post, though dated, compares some Vanguard index funds and is a light introduction into the contrarian view of investing. Simply put, this view holds that one should not be a lemming following the crowd, rather one should do the opposite of what everyone else is doing. One strong argument in favor of this view is the fact that as more people pile onto an investing strategy or into a particular market, the yields thin out and the risk of a correction (i.e. a downturn) increases. In the worst case, this leads to a bubble, which corrects itself suddenly (or \"\"pops\"\" thus the term \"\"bubble\"\") leading to quite a bit of pain for the unprepared participants. An unprepared participant is one who is not hedged properly. Basically, this means they were not invested in other markets/strategies that would increase in yield as a result of the event that caused the bubble to pop. Note that the recent housing bubble and resulting credit crunch beat quite heavily on the both the stock and bond markets. So, the easy hedge for stocks being bonds did not necessarily work out so well. This makes sense, as the housing bubble burst due to concerns over easy credit. Unfortunately, I don't have any good resources on hand that may provide starting points or discuss the various investing strategies. I must admit that I am turning my interests back to investing after a hiatus. As I stated, I used to really like the Motley Fool, but now I am somewhat suspicious of them. The main reason is the fact that as they were exploring alternatives to advertising driven revenue for their site, they promised to always have free resources available for those unwilling to pay for their advice. A cursory review of their site does show a decent amount of general investing information, so take these words with a grain of salt. (Another reason I am suspicious of them is the fact that they \"\"spammed\"\" me with lots of enticements to pay for their advice which seemed just like the type of advice they spoke against.) Anyway, time to put the soapbox away. As I do that though, I should explain the reason for this soapboxing. Simply put, investing is a risky endeavor, any way you slice it. You can never eliminate risk, you can only hope to reduce it to an acceptable level. What is acceptable is subject to your situation and to the magnitude of your risk aversion. Ultimately, it is rather subjective and you should not blindly follow someone else's opinion (professional or otherwise). Point being, use your judgment to evaluate anything you read about investing. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If someone purports to have some strategy for guaranteed (steady) returns, be very suspicious of it. (Read up on the Bernard Madoff scandal.) If someone is putting on a heavy sales pitch, be weary. Be especially suspicious of anyone asking you to pay for their advice before giving you any solid understanding of their strategy. Sure, many people want to get paid for their advice in some way (in fact, I am getting \"\"paid\"\" with reputation on this site). However, if they take the sketchy approach of a slimy salesmen, they are likely making more money from selling their strategy, than they are from the advice itself. Most likely, if they were getting outsized returns from their strategy they would keep quiet about it and continue using it themselves. As stated before, the more people pile onto a strategy, the smaller the returns. The typical model for selling is to make money from the sale. When the item being sold is an intangible good, your risk as a buyer increases. You may wonder why I have written at length without much discussion of asset allocation. One reason is that I am still a relative neophyte and have a mostly high level understanding of the various strategies. While I feel confident enough in my understanding for my own purposes, I do not necessarily feel confident creating an asset allocation strategy for someone else. The more important reason is that this is a subjective matter with a lot of variables to consider. If you want a quick and simple answer, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The best approach is to educate yourself and make these decisions for yourself. Hence, my attempt to educate you as best as I can at this point in time. Personally, I suggest you do what I did. Start reading the Wall Street Journal every day. (An acceptable substitute may be the business section of the New York Times.) At first you will be overwhelmed with information, but in the long run it will pay off. Another good piece of advice is to be patient and not rush into investing. If you are in a hurry to determine how you should invest in a 401(k) or other such investment vehicle due to a desire to take advantage of an employer's matching funds, then I would place my money in an S&P 500 index fund. I would also explore placing some of that money into broad index funds from other regions of the globe. The reason for broad index funds is to provide some protection from the normal fluctuations and to reduce the risk of a sudden downturn causing you a lot pain while you determine the best approach for yourself. In this scenario, think more about capital preservation and hedging against inflation then about \"\"beating\"\" the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d98a1a97eb6179caef1f1e5c9c6958c7",
"text": "\"Not at all impossible. What you need is Fundamental Analysis and Relationship with your investment. If you are just buying shares - not sure you can have those. I will provide examples from my personal experience: My mother has barely high school education. When she saw house and land prices in Bulgaria, she thought it's impossibly cheap. We lived on rent in Israel, our horrible apartment was worth $1M and it was horrible. We could never imagine buying it because we were middle class at best. My mother insisted that we all sell whatever we have and buy land and houses in Bulgaria. One house, for example, went from $20k to EUR150k between 2001 and 2007. But we knew Bulgaria, we knew how to buy, we knew lawyers, we knew builders. The company I currently work for. When I joined, share prices were around 240 (2006). They are now (2015) at 1500. I didn't buy because I was repaying mortgage (at 5%). I am very sorry I didn't. Everybody knew 240 is not a real share price for our company - an established (+30 years) software company with piles of cash. We were not a hot startup, outsiders didn't invest. Many developers and finance people WHO WORK IN THE COMPANY made a fortune. Again: relationship, knowledge! I bought a house in the UK in 2012 - everyone knew house prices were about to go up. I was lucky I had a friend who was a surveyor, he told me: \"\"buy now or lose money\"\". I bought a little house for 200k, it is now worth 260k. Not double, but pretty good money! My point is: take your investment personally. Don't just dump money into something. Once you are an insider, your risk will be almost mitigated and you could buy where you see an opportunity and sell when you feel you are near the maximal real worth of your investment. It's not hard to analyse, it's hard to make a commitment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e67feb54e0801a51758bca20bb4bbec4",
"text": "I implemented this in MatLab about 10 years back. You just calculate your conditional variance of the required assets (x_i), use matrix multiplication on the correlation matrix (rho_i_j) from the same asset (this could be a point of research but unless you are using extreme conditions on the VaR it makes little difference) then apply a standard Markiowitz optimisation approach. You can then just use simple Sharpe ratio (marginal return over conditional risk) at every point on the efficient frontier. Then choose the maximum Sharpe ratio point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1034f141e13d0ab627501a394187997c",
"text": "You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59ee99fc3853372dbb802b2e295679f8",
"text": "Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc4f6ec4f3490acec2d5a30e5500739",
"text": "Factors to consider: For the taxable investments:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b84f71445299a2f60b17857348dd8a7d",
"text": "\"FRM, but IIRC \"\"Risk\"\" is more of a reporting role in most banks nowadays. Meaning you automate some tools that generate reports, and your job is to make sure the results are numerically consistent with industry standard (read: wrong) methodology, and capital rules. Learn how to calculate VaR 20 different ways, some less useless than others, however mostly fundamentally useless. Expected shortfall, so basically if there is a VaR break what is the expected loss (also useless!) as you will either by simulating based on some distribution that hopefully fits the data, or historical data which is supposed to repeat itself. So to do this fun stuff: You're gonna need to know stochastic calculus (not necessarily but you should understand intuitively the formulas you're using), statistics (hypothesis testing), some econometrics/time series analysis, but key thing is programming.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26ceaf89f25dc15d761e3c7c15c56718",
"text": "\"The risk of any investment is measured by its incremental effect on the volatility of your overall personal wealth, including your other investments. The usual example is that adding a volatile stock to your portfolio may actually reduce the risk of your portfolio if it is negatively correlated with the other stuff in your portfolio. Common measures of risk, such as beta, assume that you have whole-market diversified portfolio. In the case of an investment that may or may not be hedged against currency movements, we can't say whether the hedge adds or removes risk for you without knowing what else is in your portfolio. If you are an EU citizen with nominally delimited savings or otherwise stand to lose buying power if the Euro depreciates relative to the dollar, than the \"\"hedged\"\" ETF is less risky than the \"\"unhedged\"\" version. On the other hand, if your background risk is such that you benefit from that depreciation, then the reverse is true. \"\"Hedging\"\" means reducing the risk already present in your portfolio. In this case it does not refer to reducing the individual volatility of the ETF. It may or may not do that but individual asset volatility and risk are two very different things.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97ba7c78d9da95d26c6773d89ff25ec3",
"text": "\"It's interesting that you use so many different risk measures. Here's what I'd like to know more in detail: 1) About the use of VaR. I've heard (from a friend, may be unreliable) that some investment managers like Neuberger Berman doesn't use VaR for assessing risk and maintaining capital adequacy requirements. Rather, some firms only rely on tracking error, beta, standard deviation, etc. Why do you think is this so? Isn't VaR supposed to be a widely accepted risk measure. 2) The whole \"\"Expected Shortfall vs. VaR\"\" debate. I've read some papers comparing Expected Shortfall and VaR. Mainly, they criticize VaR for not being able to consider the 1% probability left where losses can (probably) skyrocket to infinity. If I need to choose between the two, which do you think is better and why?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7586147cc335126f7bc08f20bff2f746",
"text": "In your own example of VW, it dropped from its peak price of $253 to $92. If you had invested $10,000 in VW in April 2015, by September of that year it would have gone down to $3,600. If you held on to your investment, you would now be getting back to $6,700 on that original $10,000 investment. Your own example demonstrates that it is possible to lose. I have a friend who put his fortune into a company called WorldCom (one of the examples D Stanley shared). He actually lost all of his retirement. Luckily he made some money back when the startup we both worked for was sold to a much larger company. Unsophisticated investors lose money all the time by investing in individual companies. Your best bet is to start searching this site for answers on how to invest your money so that you can see actual strategies that reduce your investment risk. Here's a starting point: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? If you want to better illustrate this principle to yourself, try this stock market simulation game.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b",
"text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e7a7044a927ec8ab40b5f4398ddd8cb",
"text": "Generally speaking. 1. Take the position size / average daily volume. 2. Multiply that number by 10 or whatever 1/whatever % of volume you think you can execute, ( you can at best acct for 10 percent of traded volume on a day). 3. You now have days until liquidation (x) 4. Take the days until liquidation sample the return over time x. I.e. if days until liquidation is 10, you would sample 10 day returns. 5. Calculate the distribution characteristics of this window (mean, var, skew, kurt) and calculate VaR based on some confidence. You can now have a liquidity risk expected loss and a VaR. If position is on margin don't forget to add the interest cost. Note: Instead of taking 10 day return, you can take the 10 day VWAP and calculate return between Open and 10 day vwap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05df34a65fa32fa9dd56f84f73990c16",
"text": "\"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c755610386012c509020b65c42c3891",
"text": "\"Yes, there is a very good Return vs Risk graph put out at riskgrades.com. Look at it soon, because it will be unavailable after 6-30-11. The RA (return analysis) graph is what I think you are looking for. The first graph shown is an \"\"Average Return\"\", which I was told was for a 3 year period. Three period returns of 3, 6 and 12 months, are also available. You can specify the ticker symbols of funds or stocks you want a display of. For funds, the return includes price and distributions (total return), but only price movement for stocks - per site webmaster. I've used the graphs for a few years, since Forbes identified it as a \"\"Best of the Web\"\" site. Initially, I found numerous problems with some of the data and was able to work with the webmaster to correct them. Lately though, they have NOT been correcting problems that I bring to their attention. For example, try the symbols MUTHX, EDITX, AWSHX and you'll see that the Risk Grades on the graphs are seriously in error, and compress the graph results and cause overwriting and poor readability. If anyone knows of a similar product, I'd like to know about it. Thanks, George\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00135dcac4fb6133749e18b232752e96",
"text": "you can check google scholar for some research reports on it. depends how complex you want to get... it is obviously a function of the size of the portfolio of each type of asset. do you have a full breakdown of securities held? you can get historical average volumes during different economic periods, categorized by interest rates for example, and then calculate the days required to liquidate the position, applying a discount on each subsequent day.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a9d2237aa0c36942d8fa0f2b255a3308
|
What is the most common and profitable investment for a good retirement in Australia?
|
[
{
"docid": "a93ff8c81440a0370a8a7e013b55910e",
"text": "In Australia anyone thinking about retirement should be concentrating on superannuation. Contribution is compulsory (I think the current minimum contribution rate is 9.5% of salary) and both contributions and investment returns are very tax efficient. The Government site is quite comprehensive - http://www.australia.gov.au/topics/economy-money-and-tax/superannuation - have a read and come back with any specific questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fcaec18b5ac9c68fa5b4879384fea24",
"text": "\"I don't look to Super or Pension, I am working on self funding. My method is work in Sydney and buy a house in Sydney (I bought 6 years ago). Let my property rise on this stupidly insane Sydney growth (my place has risen by 76% in the last 6 years and thats in a \"\"bad\"\" economic climate). Each time the equity hits a certain point get an investment property on an interest only home loan and rent it out. Build this portfolio up as much and as quickly as you can. Repeat over and over until I decide to retire. Sell up investment properties and buy NOT IN SYDNEY where it is much cheaper and move there, keep the main house I always lived in as by this time I will own it outright, rent it out for an income that will more than sustain me in my retirement. Although there is also merit in the idea of sell the one you lived in and use the money to pay of one of the investments, this way you avoid capital gains tax. This idea came to me last night :)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7553ec5eb20542eb4373ca7b51a490fa",
"text": "Edit: I a in the United States, seek advice from someone who is also in Australia. I am getting about 5.5% per year by investing in a fund (ticker:PGF) that, in turn, buys preferred stock in banks. Preferred stock acts a bit like a bond and a bit like a stock. The price is very stable. However, a bank account is FDIC insured (in the USA) and an investment is not. I use the Reinvestment program at Scottrade so that the monthly dividends are automatically reinvested with no commission. However I do not know if this is available outside of the United States. Investing yealds greater returns but exposes you to greater risk. You have to know your risk tolerance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "580cf0af2025230d148068d848f9d37b",
"text": "A falling $AUD would be beneficial to exporters, and thus overall good for the economy. If the economy improves and exporters start growing profits, that means they will start to employ more people and employment will increase - and with higher employment, employees will become more confident to make purchases, including purchasing property. I feel the falling $AUD will be beneficial for the economy and the housing market. However, what you should consider is that with an improving economy and a rising property market, it will only be a matter of time before interest rates start rising. With a lower $AUD the RBA will be more confident in starting to increase interest rates. And increasing interest rates will have a dampening effect on the housing market. You are looking to buy a property to live in - so how long do you intend to live in and hold the property? I would assume at least for the medium to long term. If this is your intention then why are you getting cold feet? What you should be concerned about is that you do not overstretch on your borrowings! Make sure you allow a buffer of 2% to 3% above current interest rates so that if rates do go up you can still afford the repayments. And if you get a fixed rate - then you should allow the buffer in case variable rates are higher when your fixed period is over. Regarding the doomsayers telling you that property prices are going to crash - well they were saying that in 2008, then again in 2010, then again in 2012. I don't know about you but I have seen no crash. Sure when interest rates have gone up property prices have levelled off and maybe gone down by 10% to 15% in some areas, but as soon as interest rates start falling again property prices start increasing again. It's all part of the property cycle. I actually find it is a better time to buy when interest rates are higher and you can negotiate a better bargain and lower price. Then when interest rates start falling you benefit from lower repayments and increasing property prices. The only way there will be a property crash in Australia is if there was a dramatic economic downturn and unemployment rates rose to 10% or higher. But with good economic conditions, an increasing population and low supplies of newly build housing in Australia, I see no dramatic crashes in the foreseeable future. Yes we may get periods of weakness when interest rates increase, with falls up to 15% in some areas, but no crash of 40% plus. As I said above, these periods of weakness actually provide opportunities to buy properties at a bit of a discount. EDIT In your comments you say you intend to buy with a monthly mortgage repayment of $2500 in place of your current monthly rent of $1800. That means your loan amount would be somewhere around $550k to $600K. You also mention you would be taking on a 5 year fixed rate, and look to sell in about 2 years time if you can break even (I assume that is break even on the price you bought at). In 2 years you would have paid $16,800 more on your mortgage than you would have in rent. So here are the facts: A better strategy:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfc2aa4d3688ac396c2defe618e2c11a",
"text": "Your main choices are ISAs and property. You can put over £15,000 per year into an ISA, which means over £450,000 by the time you retire, not allowing for growth in your ISA investments. But if you're paying rent, and worried about being able to pay rent when you retire, the obvious choice is to buy a flat now on a thirty-year mortgage so that you can stop paying rent and the mortgage will be paid off by the time you retire.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f11efb8a075ef99cef40110adf99057a",
"text": "\"Because the returns are not good. One of the big drivers in Australia is \"\"negative gearing\"\": if your investment loses money you can offset losses against your tax on other income. Institutional investors and corporations are in the business of making money: not losing it. Housing market investors are betting that these year to year revenue losses will ultimately be made up in a big capital gain: for which individuals get a huge tax break that is also not available to corporations. Capital gains are not guaranteed. Australia has benefited from 25+ years of economic, employment and wages growth: a result of good government planning, strong corporate governance and a fair slice of luck. If this were to end housing prices would plateau at best and crash at worst. A person who has negative cash flow investments has to sell them urgently if they lose their job. A glut of mortgagee sales and property prices could easily come off 20-30%. Rental yields on residential property in Sydney are about 4% with a capital gain of currently 10% but this has been flat or negative within the last 5 years and no doubt will be again within the next 5. Rental yields for residential property are constrained by mortgage rates: if it significantly cheaper to buy then to rent, why would anyone rent? In contrast, industrial and commercial property gets a yield of about 7% and gets exactly the same capital gain. This is because land is land and if the price of industrial land doesn't grow at the same rate as the residential land next door eventually one will be converted into the other. Retail rentals are even higher. In addition commercial tenants are responsible for more outgoings and have fewer legal rights than residential tenants. Further, individual residential properties are horribly illiquid and have large transaction costs. While it is possible to bundle them up into property trusts so that units can be sold on the stock exchange it is far more common to do this with office and retail buildings. This is what companies like Westfield and AMP Capital do. Notwithstanding, heavily geared property trusts can get into deep water because of the illiquid nature of property as the failure of Centro illustrates. That said, there are plenty of companies that develop residential houses and units for sale to owner occupiers or investors because that's where the money is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "516da182f7042c936cfb4e522a1d5230",
"text": "As sdg said, the consensus is that the CPP is pretty solid. An actuarial report is submitted to Parliament every three years, and it's worth getting the numbers from that report so you know where your CPP contributions are invested. You may think there's more risk in CPP's portfolio than they let on. Either way, your own savings and investments are the best defense against inadequacy of the CPP. But you should be careful, as the CPP mostly invests in the same stuff the retail investor does - equity and fixed income. So the typical investor will be exposed to the risks as the CPP fund. However, CPP is not the only source of retirement income for Canadians. There is also the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Old Age Security, and they are funded differently from CPP. CPP benefits are funded by returns from the investment fund, as well as contributions. GIS and OAS are paid out of the Government of Canada's revenue each year. In my opinion, those programs are more vulnerable than CPP as they could just be legislated out of existence in tough economic times. (However, I also see that as unlikely because the elderly are a pretty powerful block of voters.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96802f64aee75a2dff0c7b4c113c4323",
"text": "John Bogle never said only buy the S&P 500 or any single index Q:Do you think the average person could safely invest for retirement and other goals without expert advice -- just by indexing? A: Yes, there is a rule of thumb I add to that. You should start out heavily invested in equities. Hold some bond index funds as well as stock index funds. By the time you get closer to retirement or into your retirement, you should have a significant position in bond index funds as well as stock index funds. As we get older, we have less time to recoup. We have more money to protect and our nervousness increases with age. We get a little bit worried about that nest egg when it's large and we have little time to recoup it, so we pay too much attention to the fluctuations in the market, which in the long run mean nothing. How much to pay Q: What's the highest expense ratio that one should pay for a domestic equity fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent maybe. Q: For an international fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent. Q: For a bond fund? A: One-half of 1 percent. But I'd shave that a little bit. For example, if you can buy a no-load bond fund or a no-load stock fund, you can afford a little more expense ratio, because you're not paying any commission. You've eliminated cost No. 2....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78ad014d42219e3dd027f14d2cebbb18",
"text": "A matching pension scheme is like free money. No wait, it actually IS free money. You are literally earning 100% interest rate on that money the instant you pay it in to the account. That money would have to sit in your credit card account for at least five years to earn that kind of return; five years in which the pension money would have earned an additional return over and above the 100%. Mathematically there is no contest that contributing to a matching pension scheme is one of the best investment there is. You should always do it. Well, almost always. When should you not do it?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0e05e8086085091d8d3e5c8e254edcf",
"text": "As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30ba162804859dd1871475d85a83ae6b",
"text": "To answer your question, Retirement Revolution may fit the bill to some extent. I'd also like to address some of the indirect assumptions that were made in your bullet points. I'm convinced that the best way to overcome this is not simply to hold down a good job with COLAs every year, max out your IRA accounts and 401(k)s, invest another 10-20% on top, and live off of the savings and whatever Social Security decides to pay you. Instead, the trick is to not retire -- to make a transition into an income-producing activity that can be done in the typical retirement years, hopefully one that is closer to one's calling (i.e., more fulfilling). This takes time, not money. If people just shut off the TV and spent the time building up a side business that has a high passive component, they'd stand a much better chance of not outliving their money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca08e689fcc2c9d406480c808f9c09c8",
"text": "This is a somewhat complicated question because it really depends on your personal situation. For example, the following parameters might impact your optimal asset allocation: If you need the money before 3 years, I would suggest keeping almost all of it in cash, CDs, Treasuries, and ultra safe short-term corporate bonds. If however, you have a longer time horizon (and since you're in your 30s you would ideally have decades) you should diversify by investing in many different asset classes. This includes Australian equity, international equity, foreign and domestic debt, commodities, and real estate. Since you have such a long time horizon market timing is not that important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15a6082d1454328277850caf56f59175",
"text": "You need growth in your retirement fund. Sad to say but the broad U.S. marks still has better growth perspective than the emerging markets. Look at China they are only at 6.7% growth for next year the same as this year. Russia's economy is shrinking. These are the other two super powers of 2015. The USA is still the best market to invest in historically and in the present. That's why the USA market tends to be overweight in most retirement portfolios. Now by only investing in the USA market do you miss out on trends internationally? Well you do a bit but not entirely. Many USA companies are highly international in regards to their growth. Here are some: So in short the USA market still seems to be the best growth market and you still get some international exposure. Also by investing in USA companies they sometimes are more ethical in their book keeping as opposed to some other markets. I don't think I'm the only one that is skeptical of the numbers China's government reports.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1b4b169ac98e5ea279f867e2cdeb691",
"text": "No. And just a caution about that super low risk: suppose that you lived during the late 70s and early 80s, when savers in the United States could get interest rates over 10% for savings. You put your money into an account in 1980, knowing that in five years, you'll have made a solid amount of interest. Except that you might have been smarter to convert your money to AUD and save in that currency because it would have moved from 0.88 in value to 1.43 in value (in principal only, not interest - when I look at the RBA's bank interest, it appears they were also paying double digit interest to savers). Now, I get that this may not be the answer that you want to see because it means that if the interest rates were higher in the US, for savers, they might be higher elsewhere too, and it also means that what may appear to be a super low risk could actually be a high risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c357962a2485aaf01bfc8abffacd7213",
"text": "You have a comparatively small sum to invest, and since you're presumably expecting to go to college.university soon, where you may well need the money, you also have a short timescale for your investment. I don't think anything stock-related would be good for you -- you need a longer timescale for stock market investments, at least five years and preferably ten or more. I don't know the details of Australian savings, but I'd suggest just finding a bank that is giving a good interest rate for a one-year fixed-term savings account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47cea5f4c2bd6ef611d52e55975e7338",
"text": "I have done something similar to this myself. What you are suggesting is a sound theory and it works. The issues are (which is why it's the reason not everyone does it) : The initial cost is great, many people in their 20s or 30s cannot afford their own home, let alone buy second properties. The time to build up a portfolio is very long term and is best for a pension investment. it's often not best for diversification - you've heard not putting all your eggs in one basket? With property deposits, you need to put a lot of eggs in to make it work and this can leave you vulnerable. there can be lots of work involved. Renovating is a huge pain and cost and you've already mentioned tennants not paying! unlike a bank account or bonds/shares etc. You cannot get to your savings/investments quickly if you need to (or find an opportunity) But after considering these and deciding the plunge is worth it, I would say go for it, be a good landlord, with good quality property and you'll have a great nest egg. If you try just one and see how it goes, with population increase, in a safe (respectable) location, the value of the investment should continue to rise (which it doesn't in a bank) and you can expect a 5%+ rental return (very hard to find in cash account!) Hope it goes well!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb3abcd14a58afbb8f891284510f413",
"text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c7cddc8bc62fc6a42ae56ca2d578f39e
|
Should I consolidate loans and cards, or just cards, leaving multiple loans?
|
[
{
"docid": "7b03ca7b1ba6eb211a8efc1fa0bdf24a",
"text": "\"My answer is similar to Ben Miller's, but let me make some slightly different points: There is one excellent reason to get a consolidation loan: You can often get a lower interest rate. If you are presently paying 19% on a credit card and you can roll that into a personal loan at 13.89%, you'll be saving over 5%, which can add up. I would definitely not consolidate a loan at 12.99% into a loan at 13.89%. Then you're just adding 1% to your interest rate. What's the benefit in this? Another good reasons for a consolidation loan is psychological. A consolidation loan with fixed payments forces you to pay that amount every month. You say you have trouble with credit cards. It's very easy to say to yourself, \"\"Oh, just this month I'm going to pay just the minimum so I can use my cash for this other Very Important Thing that I need to buy.\"\" And then next month you find something else that you just absolutely have to buy. And again the next month, and the next, and your determination to seriously pay down your debt keeps getting pushed off. If you have a fixed monthly payment, you can't. You're committed. Also, if you have many credit cards, juggling payments on all of them can get complex and confusing. It's easy to lose track of how much you owe and to budget for payments. At worst, when there are many bills to pay you may forget one. (Personally I now have 3 bank cards, an airline card, and 2 store cards, and managing them is getting out of hand. I have good reasons for having so many cards: the airline card and the store cards give me special discounts. But it's confusing to keep track of.) As to adding $3,000 to the consolidation loan: Very, very bad idea. You are basically saying, \"\"I have to start seriously paying down my debt ... tomorrow. Today I need a some extra cash so I'm going to borrow just a little bit more, but I'm going to get started paying it off next month.\"\" This is a trap, and the sort of trap that leads people into spiraling debt. Start paying off debt NOW, not at some vague time in the future that never seems to come.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfe0cb4d3020038f39c2d51d065ff503",
"text": "\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "16ee117db6c744f258caf872585d7bbc",
"text": "\"Also, since I'm guessing OP isn't flush with cash, not having to come up with additional money to pay the student loans for some time will provide some short-term \"\"debt relief\"\"... possibly reducing the possibility of racking up more CC debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bad9dfbadf50617c08a9caefb87ab4b",
"text": "\"If there is any fee at all on the cash advance, and zero interest on the student loans (for now), it's not worth it mathematically. And for only 8 months of \"\"free\"\" money, it's rare for it to be worth it overall. You need to save a significant amount either by having a good net interest rate (e.g., saving 20% on another card and not paying any interest on the new loan) or by saving a lot on principal (e.g., paying off $100k now and not paying the interest on that for the next 8 months). I wouldn't worry about it hurting your credit score unless your credit is going to be evaluated during the time you're maxing your card. Part of your score (20-30% IIRC) is your credit utilization ratio, which is how much you have available vs. how much you're using. It's separate from the part that accounts for history, so it's only relevant at the time you're looked up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6bf0dac1b99db46ca516e83d40bd2b7",
"text": "If I were you, I would pay off the car loan today. You already have an excellent credit score. Practically speaking, there is no difference between a 750 score and an 850 score; you are already eligible for the best loan rates. The fact that you are continuing to use 5 credit cards and that you still have a mortgage tells me that this car loan will have a negligible impact on your score (and your life). By the way, if you had told me that your score was low, I would still tell you to pay off the loan, but for a different reason. In that case, I would tell you to stop worrying about your score, and start getting your financial life in order by eliminating debt. Take care of your finances by reducing the amount of debt in your life, and the score will take care of itself. I realize that the financial industry stresses the importance of a high score, but they are also the ones that sell you the debt necessary to obtain the high score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5b6570980cee300b2970bed11b976d2",
"text": "It's definitely NOT a good idea to pay off one of the smaller loans in your case - a $4k payment split across all the loans would be better than repaying the 5% / $4k loan completely, as it's the most beneficial of your loans and thus is last priority for repayment. A payment that splits across all the loans equally is, in effect, a partial repayment on a loan with an interest rate of 6.82% (weighed average rate of all your loans). It's not as good as repaying a 7% loan, but almost as good. It might be an option to save up until you can repay one of your 7% loans, but it depends - if it takes a lot of time, then you would've paid unneccessary interest during that time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5a0adb60ff59b3eb5574f10cbb7c96f",
"text": "Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8806e9d671a8ff9f311ba73e1e8dfbc",
"text": "To add to @bstpierre's answer, you should automate all your loans except for the one with the highest interest rate. Leave that one manual, and pay the most you can afford each month, to pay it off as quickly as possible. Once you finish that loan, move to the next highest interest rate. Ultimately, this won't be quite as convenient as just having 1 loan. The differences are: You need to set up all the automatic payments. This is probably comparable to in complexity of consolidating your loans. Each time you finish one loan, you need to turn off an automatic payment, and start doing the next loan manually. If you organize yourself well initially, you'll know exactly what order to do the loans in, so this shouldn't take too long. However, unless your consolidated loan has the same interest rate of your cheapest current loan, you will likely save money over-all by using this method.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "798ac3de07915c0ef439ed5ee6f842b0",
"text": "If I were you, I would pay one of them off completely, then cut the card up and close the account. I have the feeling that you would be better off with just one card. That's all I've ever had and I've never needed a second one. It can help keep you out of trouble, too. Then I'd apply $1000 to $1500 towards the other card, and blow the rest on something stupid. Win-win.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03317b5968a3d8e951a1c07d22caa8e6",
"text": "I agree with the Dave Ramsey method as well. If you don't have $1k in the bank already, do that. Total up the smaller debts and the best buy card. if they are $4k all together, then pay them off. Don't get caught up in keeping the smaller one around because they are at zero percent. If they exceed $4k, then payoff the interest bomb best buy card, then pay off the smaller ones, starting with the smaller balance. That is the only tweak I will make here. Dropping any amount into the Citi balance is pointless because it only reduces the amount, not the total number of hands reaching into your bank account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f7466bc890563ee9345c8834bfb181",
"text": "Also, unless I missed it and someone already mentioned it, do keep in mind the impact of these credit cards balances on your credit score. Over roughly 75% usage on a given credit account reflects badly on your score and has a pretty large impact on how your worthiness is calculated. It gives the impression that you are a person that lives month to month on cards, etc. If you could get both cards down to reasonable balances to where you could begin paying on them regularly and work them down over time, that will not only look incredible for your credit report but also immediately begin making your credit worthiness begin to raise due to the fact that you will not have accounts that (I'm assuming here) are at very high usage (over 75% of your total limit.) If you have to get one card knocked out just to get breathing room, and you're boxed in here -- or honestly even if the mental stress is causing you incredible hardship day to day, then I suppose blow one card out of the water, reassess and start getting to work on that second card. I hope this helped, I'm no expert, but I have had every kind of luck with credit cards and accounts you could think of, so I can only give my experience from the rubber-meets-the-road perspective. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5125c60090eb9d00dda6f03f165512d5",
"text": "Please do not conflate number of credit cards with amount of debt. Consider two scenarios, The latter scenario yields much better credit scoring. Many recommendation sources suggest the following, Although your credit score seems very important, it is only important when you have financial interactions (such as applying for credit or services) where the other party makes decisions based upon the score. You should only obtain loans and credit when you want and it makes sense based upon your needs; choosing to live your life to serve credit scoring agencies may not be your happy place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5841080e5f9aba6ff7e24e94ad1e718b",
"text": "\"This sounds like an accounting nightmare to be 100% precise. With each payment you're going to have to track: If you can account for those, then the fair thing to do is for one person to stop paying after they have paid the amount of principal they had at the beginning of the process, or possibly after they have paid an amount equivalent to the total principal and accrued interest they would have paid if they paid their loans individually. The problem is, one of you is likely going to pay more interest than you would have under the individual plan. In the example you gave, if your brother pays off any of your loans, he is going to be paying more in interest than if he paid on his 5% loans. If you pay the highest rate loans first, whoever has the lower total balance is going to pay more interest since they'll be paying on the higher rates until they've paid their \"\"fair share\"\". I don't see a clean way for you to divvy up the interest savings appropriately unless you trueup at the very end of the process. Math aside, these types of agreements can be dangerous to relationships. What if one of you decides that they don't want to participate anymore? What if one of you gets all of their loans paid off much earlier - they get the joy of being debt free while the other still has all of the debt left? What if they then don't feel obligates to pay the other's remaining debt? Are you both equally committed to cutting lifestyle in order to attack these debts? In my opinion, the complexity and risk to the relationship don't justify the interest savings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf83cd0a41ae7488023b5b518debfe03",
"text": "\"Your companies are declining to lower your rates because you are describing it as being kind. When I was in a similar situation, I called each one, starting with the highest rate, and said this: For the last little while things have been tight and my balances have crept up on all my cards. Now I'm about to start a fairly dramatic paydown. I'm going to be doing highest-rate fastest, which is you. Are you able to lower my rate so that you can continue to collect it? Some said no. Some said \"\"ask again when you've paid more than the minimum three months in a row.\"\" Most said yes, and sometimes by a dramatic amount. It made a real difference to getting things under control. I agree with the other answers that $50 extra on each card is just not as fulfilling as putting all the extra to a single card. If you must still use a card (to put gas in your car, buy groceries etc) getting one card to zero will return you to not paying interest even when you use it, so you might want to start with your lowest balance and then go to highest-rate once you have one clear one you can use. (If your balances are all so high that it will take a year or more to get one to zero, then maybe not. But if one is low drive it down first.) As for the consolidation loan, for some people it's the key to saving interest and getting the debt behind them. For others it's a chance to catch their breath and run up even more debt. Most people cannot predict in advance which they will be or which others will be. Be aware that it is a risk. You can vow that you will never again cover payroll with a cash advance from the company credit card (or your personal one) but when push comes to shove, you just might anyway.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ceb0296f8c154f411ec59378a46403a7",
"text": "This depends on the loan calculation methodology. If it is on reducing balance then yes. Else not much difference",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfaa0623509847dbfeb78d6499835351",
"text": "\"From the comments, it sounds like you have a technical background. So I'm going to suggest you think of this as a technical problem: it's an optimization problem, where the variable you're trying to optimize for is total interest paid over the lifetime of the loans. Step 1 is making sure you're using the credit available to you most efficiently. If there's room in the credit limit for card #1 to move more of your debt there, then definitely move your balances from the higher-interest cards. However, be careful; some cards will have different interest rates for balance transfers or cash advances. And definitely don't move any principal from Card #3 until the 0% interest rate expires. Pursuing a bank loan as part of step 1 is valid as well. You could start with the bank you use for your checking account today. Credit unions can be a good source of lower-interest loans as well. Ensure that you fully understand the terms and interest rates, particularly if they change. Just be careful about applying for them; too many rejections can affect your credit rating negatively. You also mention in the comments that you're paying \"\"her\"\" mortgage. I don't know how the ownership is set up there, but either refinancing or taking out a home equity loan can be a way to consolidate debt. The interest rate on a home loan will almost assuredly be less than on your higher rate cards, especially taking the tax deduction into account. Step 2 is paying down the debt efficiently. The rule here is simple: Pay the minimum payment on all cards except for the one with the highest interest rate; any money you have above the minimum payments should go into paying down the principal on that one. In your case, that's Card #2. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fc79b65310eb6cba590a08089bf4016",
"text": "Try the Envelope Budgeting System. It is a pretty good system for managing your discretionary outflows. Also, be sure to pay yourself first. That means treat savings like an expense (mortgage, utilities, etc.) not an account you put money in when you have some left over. The problem is you NEVER seem to have anything leftover because most people's lifestyle adjusts to fit their income. The best way to do this is have the money automatically drafted each month without any action required on your part. An employer sponsored 401K is a great way to do this.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8acd0772717d5062515dd001fbe75b74
|
Is the BA Avios Visa airlines rewards card worth it?
|
[
{
"docid": "c7ea3c99d2a0c1ce464894857e73eeb4",
"text": "\"I am a proud member of the BA frequent fliers' club (Executive Club). Their service is superb. Their avios (aka miles) are quite useful. However, that is if you're not flying with British Airways, because if you do - you'll pay enormous amounts as \"\"taxes\"\". I've used their avios on Air Berlin, American Airlines and Iberia - several times each, and their prices are very reasonable (including trans-Atlantic flights, although I mostly used it for domestic flights in the US and EU). If you only fly BA - their club charges ridiculous amounts for taxes and you would probably want to be in one of their partners' clubs. Depending on your traveling pattern - I'd suggest American Airlines (if you travel a lot in the US) or Qantas (if you travel to far East). I'm not familiar with other partners' clubs, so can't tell. So whether or not the 50K avios worth the investment is really up to you - it depends greatly on your traveling pattern and where you can use them. If only on BA - not sure if it is worth the trouble (although you do end up with about 50%-70% discount of the regular price when you buy miles tickets).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "68605b994750cda15b1b2fb7ec50bf35",
"text": "The percentage fee often depends on the type of card. Amex and rewards cards like aeroplan cards often charge 2.5-4% whereas cashback cards will charge less. That's why most places (specifically in Canada which is where I'm from) don't take Amex because they charge way too much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c281575b40880591630dc967b4d192e0",
"text": "I applied to a travel credit card after my local branch of Bank of America told me I should look into it due to my constant traveling. I've been with them for 3 years and have never had an issue and I was declined on my travel credit card even though I have a decent credit score of 730. I'm also a 22 year old and have my senior year of school to finish but have always been good with Bank of America. Is it because I'm young?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6733d9bb2f5cf453abc85a901eb8cb9f",
"text": "It's a good question, I am amazed how few people ask this. To summarise: is it really worth paying substantial fees to arrange a generic investment though your high street bank? Almost certainly not. However, one caveat: You didn't mention what kind of fund(s) you want to invest in, or for how long. You also mention an “advice fee”. Are you actually getting financial advice – i.e. a personal recommendation relating to one or more specific investments, based on the investments' suitability for your circumstances – and are you content with the quality of that advice? If you are, it may be worth it. If they've advised you to choose this fund that has the potential to achieve your desired returns while matching the amount of risk you are willing to take, then the advice could be worth paying for. It entirely depends how much guidance you need. Or are you choosing your own fund anyway? It sounds to me like you have done some research on your own, you believe the building society adviser is “trying to sell” a fund and you aren't entirely convinced by their recommendation. If you are happy making your own investment decisions and are merely looking for a place to execute that trade, the deal you have described via your bank would almost certainly be poor value – and you're looking in the right places for an alternative. ~ ~ ~ On to the active-vs-passive fund debate: That AMC of 1.43% you mention would not be unreasonable for an actively managed fund that you strongly feel will outperform the market. However, you also mention ETFs (a passive type of fund) and believe that after charges they might offer at least as good net performance as many actively managed funds. Good point – although please note that many comparisons of this nature compare passives to all actively managed funds (the good and bad, including e.g. poorly managed life company funds). A better comparison would be to compare the fund managers you're considering vs. the benchmark – although obviously this is past performance and won't necessarily be repeated. At the crux of the matter is cost, of course. So if you're looking for low-cost funds, the cost of the platform is also significant. Therefore if you are comfortable going with a passive investment strategy, let's look at how much that might cost you on the platform you mentioned, Hargreaves Lansdown. Two of the most popular FTSE All-Share tracker funds among Hargreaves Lansdown clients are: (You'll notice they have slightly different performance btw. That's a funny thing with trackers. They all aim to track but have a slightly different way of trading to achieve it.) To hold either of these funds in a Hargreaves Lansdown account you'll also pay the 0.45% platform charge (this percentage tapers off for portolio values higher than £250,000 if you get that far). So in total to track the FTSE All Share with these funds through an HL account you would be paying: This gives you an indication of how much less you could pay to run a DIY portfolio based on passive funds. NB. Both the above are a 100% equities allocation with a large UK companies weighting, so won't suit a lower risk approach. You'll also end up invested indiscriminately in eg. mining, tobacco, oil companies, whoever's in the index – perhaps you'd prefer to be more selective. If you feel you need financial advice (with Nationwide) or portfolio management (with Nutmeg) you have to judge whether these services are worth the added charges. It sounds like you're not convinced! In which case, all the best with a low-cost passive funds strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff658878eb559cffbb618b78cfe1ff60",
"text": "http://www.andrewsfcu.org/ is one of the only US financial institutions to issue a low or no annual fee chip and pin visa or mastercard.. Andrews is primarily for civilian employees of the Andrews Air Force Base but is available to members of the American Consumer Council, which offers free membership, see http://www.andrewsfcu.org/page.php?page=330 . The chip and pin card is a visa with $0 annual fee and charges a 1% foreign transaction fee. Getting one is modestly difficult because you have to first join the credit union then apply for the card, then go through underwriting as if it were a personal loan rather than a revolving credit account. Still, for travelers, it is probably worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a86781b481e27f434338b7e0bd423ee6",
"text": "Update, 2013: this product is no longer available. As of December 1, 2010, Travelex announced a product, the Travelex Cash Passport, which is chip-and-pin protected. You can buy it in the US and then load it up with either Euros or British Pounds. There are a few things to know about this: Right now, it is not available online at the Travelex website. You must purchase it in person at participating Travelex retail locations. I bought mine right downstairs from the Stack Overflow world headquarters! The fees that Travelex charges for foreign currency transactions will take your breath away. I purchased a £300 card for $547.15, which comes out to a 15% service charge. Travelex will give you better rates if you purchase larger amounts. There is a further 3% fee if you use a credit card (I used a debit card to avoid this). Think long and hard about whether to load it with Pounds or Euros. They charged me 5.5% above the interbank exchange rate to spend my Pound card in Euros. You get two cards, which is very convenient. You can refill the card on the web. Due to the high fees, the Chip and PIN Cash Passport is not a good idea for everyday transactions, for getting cash from an ATM, and certainly not for paying for big-ticket items like hotels. You're going to want to reserve it for purchasing things from those automated kiosks in Europe (especially gas stations, ticket machines in train stations, and toll booths) that will not work with a standard magnetic stripe card. The card worked perfectly buying tickets on the tube in London. I haven't had a chance to check it out in other countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6ac6bef5e8fc21dc420d50a8854bbe2",
"text": "It is absolutely worth it. My wife and I have two of these accounts (different banks). We are required to use our cards 20 times for one bank, and 15 for the other. We have yet to miss the required transactions in a month (over 15 months of use now), and are actually considering getting a third account. Between the two of us, we simply have to use our card on average once a day. Getting gas? Use your debit card. Getting stamps? Use your debit card? Self checkout? Use your debit card twice. Eating out? Use your debit card. If married, split the bill. As soon as we reach the minimum, we stop using the debit cards and switch to credit cards to further boost the rewards. Maybe it's easier for us since we don't have kids and are out a lot, but 12 transactions is really simple to obtain. We receive ~$100 a month from our two accounts, all for doing something we already do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d993d1e702f9e83f0ef2b0d52494616",
"text": "Your best option is just to pick a card that gives you the best (highest) rewards without charging you an annual or other fees (or the lowest annual or other fees). As you are looking to pay off the full balance by the due date you won't have to worry about the interest rate but just make sure you get an interest free period.",
"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": "5f1398dd2ca1496db93e73c62e0baa3a",
"text": "\"The American Express Centurion Card (the \"\"Black Card\"\") is for extremely wealthy people who like to show off how much they spend. There are no cash back benefits like you have with traditional rewards cards. The benefits are all geared toward spending more money, not saving money. For example, the benefits include a personal travel agent, personal shoppers at high end stores, elite status with airlines and hotels, etc. There are some benefits that you could put a dollar value on. For example, first class upgrades and complementary companion airline tickets. If you like to fly first class and you do a lot of flying, it is conceivable that you could come out ahead. However, someone that does that much flying has probably already achieved elite frequent flyer status and enjoys regular upgrades without the Black card. In my opinion, it is pretty difficult to justify the initiation and annual fees of this card as anything but a luxury.\"",
"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": "240af245a23939104871e35102887363",
"text": "Update: Here is a Google Docs spreadsheet that is actively maintained and editable. It contains a list of EMV credit cards. With a few exceptions (UN, existing BMO Diners Club cardholders, employees of the state of North Carolina), it still looks like the Travelex card is the best option for most people. Original answer: The premise of the question may now be outdated. I have found internet articles claiming 4 US banks will now issue Chip and PIN cards. Specifically: The Chase link is for their British Airways card, which multiple sources say is really Chip and Signature (leaving it there so no one else suggests it). The Citi link is to specific chip and PIN information. I could not find specific information for the other two. I have a question into my bank (US Bank) and will update when they get back to me. In looking into this, some of the chip and PIN links I followed ended up being chip and signature, so as always, be careful.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33ea4b356f1a5344c14018e419b631c2",
"text": "For ATMs you should check if the ATM you're going to use accepts the network you're in. If the ATM has the same logo (it should probably have a whole bunch of logos) that is on your card - it should work. I have not encountered an ATM that wouldn't accept a VISA card in Europe, and I travel a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7b363cdad4a083eaa1df0cc545c2294",
"text": "While in London for a month about a year ago, I had similar issues. I ended up getting a prepaid chip-and-pin card that was filled with cash. I don't remember the retailer that sold me this, but I figure it'll give you something to start your search.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f11084b2366ab76db3b62289ae15b28",
"text": "this post offers valuable information we can all use when scouting for frequent flyer credit cards. let's all support this post of my friend, sean travis, by reading and sharing it to all our friends and followers in different social networking sites.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab13c8e94669d0061ba71990a2911d94",
"text": "a free $50 looks too good to be true. As others already pointed out, these offers are common to many cards that want you to build loyalty towards a particular company (e.g. airlines cards give lots of mileage for a decent initial spend). Should I get this card for the $50? Why and/or why not? How much do you spend on Amazon, or are planning to do so in future? This offer has been around for ages (earlier they used to offer much smaller amounts of $20 for signing up) and you never saw it. So probably, you won't be really using the site frequently. In that case, its just a matter of whether $50 is worth the hassle for you to sign up and then later cancel (if you don't want to manage another new card). The hit to credit score is likely to be minimal unless you do such offers often. As such, for a person who rarely buys on Amazon I wouldn't advise you to sign up for this card, there are better rewards cards that are not as tied to a particular site (such as Chase Freedom, Discover etc.) If however, you are a regular shopper but just never noticed this prompt earlier; then it is worthwhile to get this - or even consider the Prime version, which you will get or be automatically upgraded to if the account has Prime membership. That gives 5% back instead of 3% on Amazon.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
279649c2bf2dd8167da2e1a591e1373f
|
Question about protecting yourself from company not beating earning eastimate
|
[
{
"docid": "b83ca62b000988b575cbcc0dac653872",
"text": "The best thing to do to avoid this is not to sell as you've described. What purpose does it solve? If you're speculating, set a price at which you want to cash out and put a limit order. If you're a long term investor, then unless something fundamental has changed - why would you sell?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "69544397471ef5cae6bd7a87612b501f",
"text": "The company match is not earnings. My company deposits 5% of my income into my 401(k) and it appears nowhere except on the paperwork for the 401(k). To be clear, it doesn't appear on any paystub or W2.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f06e5113e47302d55798c67dc6474c7",
"text": "I would look on http://seekingalpha.com/currents/earnings. You can also get copies of the conference calls for each company you are looking at. What you referred to is the conference call. The people who usually ask questions are professional analysts. I would recommend getting the transcript as it is easier to highlight and keep records of. I hope that helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e3085ac5c2dcd51f5a17ac8f04f1cdb",
"text": "\"This information is clearly \"\"material\"\" (large impact) and \"\"non-public\"\" according to the statement of the problem. Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such. Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bcb59a669749520116928bbb4a071bc",
"text": "Because growth and earnings are going down exponentially for this company? It will eventually go up (like 3 years+), but if you want to feel more pain first, go ahead. Look at the macroeconomic picture before you praise all mighty of an individual company",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f70e9b1546375e881102b39de8ec53ba",
"text": "Whether it's wise or not depends on what you think and what you should consider are the risks both ways. What are the risks? For Let's say that the company produces great value and its current price and initial price are well below what it's worth. By investing some of your money in the company, you can take advantage of this value and capitalize off of it if the market recognizes this value too, or when the market does (if it's a successful company it will be a matter of when). Other reasons to be for it are that the tech industry is considered a solid industry and a lot of money is flowing into it. Therefore, if this assumption is correct, you may assume that your job is safe even if your investment doesn't pay off (meaning, you don't lose income, but your investment may not be a great move). Against Let's say that you dump a lot of money into your company and invest in the stock. You're being paid by the company, you're taking some of that money and investing it in the company, meaning that, depending on how much you make outside the company, you are increasing your risk of loss if something negative happens to the company (ie: it fails). Other reasons to be against it are just the opposite as above: due to the NSA, some analysts (like Mish, ZeroHedge, and others) think that the world will cut back on doing IT business with the United States, thus the tech industry will take a major hit over the next decade. In addition to that, Jesse Colombo (@TheBubbleBubble) on Twitter is predicting that there's another tech bubble and it will make a mess when it pops (to be fair to Colombo, he was one of analysts who predicted the housing bubble and his predictions on trading are often right). Finally, there is a risk of lost money and there is also a risk of lost opportunity. Looking at your past investments, which generally hurt more? That might give you a clue what to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dc3aa9d9c0ebbb7fdb91b91168d0074",
"text": "\"> You do realize that investors are protected from being sued right? Not usually, no. If the investor is a partner in the company then they're just as responsible for the debts of their business as any other partner. If they're just a capital investor with no interest in the company business then sure - you can't sue them. But then my contract wouldn't be with them, would it? > So if the company you work for tanks, you can sue them, but they don't have any money so what do you expect to get? The registered owners of the company can also be held liable for it's debts if it's a corporation. Or you can always just have them sign as guarantor for your back pay. And don't say \"\"Nobody will ever do that!!\"\", because if your service is valuable enough then **YES THEY WILL**. I've pushed for a personal liability guarantee from a company owner before and got it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57e9a98db1760ad8c32ca7e0a51cec78",
"text": "This is basically saying that it's not possible to make more than some not-so-large amount without taking for yourself part of what several other people produce, yes? How does that fit with the very high profits per a employee numbers that some companies have?: http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-profitable-employees-companies",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7802fb64221ba7a31d753654795ba341",
"text": "As littleadv says it depends on the local laws. Normally one shouldn't be too worried. Typically the stocks given to the employees are a very small portion of the overall stocks ... the owners would not try to jeopardize the deal just so that they make an incrementally small amount of money ... they would rather play safe than get into such a practice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da160fffe8072dca28be2c03e430316a",
"text": "There's virtually no way for a person to completely avoid taxation at some point in their lives. Between payroll, sales, excise, and the like, you've been taxed at some point. And whether or not the individual paid is irrelevant to the ownership claim being invalid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18945ab0486249685c08f982046f8d69",
"text": "\"I'm sorry, unless the employee has a contract he need not be rewarded during successful periods. However, the shareholder does have such a contract: the articles of incorporation. Your quasi-communist ideology might characterize this situation as also unfair, but the fact remains that an investor is more valuable to a company than an employee is. Furthermore, an investor takes on risk, something an employee does not do. When I purchase CAT stock, I may very well lose everything. I am the last in the long line of creditors. However, the employee does not stand to lose anything, and is much higher in the line of creditors. The days of Sinclair's \"\"The Jungle\"\" are over in this country. CAT has no obligation to pay above-market wages to its employees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22590ba1c5c21a811a2440d8212d2517",
"text": "I don't want to argue any, either, I'll just reiterate what I was originally trying to get at: Your boss/owner/manager is dependant on you creating enough value to pay their paycheck as well. Managers do not directly create value for the company. They might bring in deals, they might 'know' someone, etc. but in the end, workers make the product. If a worker leaves, they'll just have to get another one, or that value ceases. Taken to the extreme, they'd be a company of bosses & managers, and no work at all being done. (but plenty of TPS reports done with the correct cover sheets.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92388431b9fc8ad3f676a1f056912571",
"text": "Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated). You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A. However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69c7a5d7335c469d7888a0eccf8bf994",
"text": "So the key factor here, IMHO, is the amount we are talking about. $2K is just not a lot of money. If you lose every penny, you can recover. On the other hand it is unlikely to make you wealthy. So if I was you I would buy in, more for the fun of it all. Now if it was a large amount of money that we were talking about it would be about a percentage of my net worth. For example, lets say the minimum was 20K, and you really believed in the company. If I had a net worth of less than 200K, I would not do it. If I had a larger net worth, I would consider it unless I was near retirement. So if I was 30, hand a net worth of 300K, I would probably invest as even if I did lose it all, I could recover. Having said all that it does not sound like you completely agree that the company will be profitable. So in that case, don't buy. Also, I have the opportunity to buy my own company's stock at a discount. However, I do not for two reasons. The first is I don't like investing in the company I work for. Secondly, they require you to hold the stock for a year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0a0740c1b6d3078decfcc0ed1551c3a",
"text": "No, just as the profits from the bank do not go to their personal accounts and instead go to the banks coffers, where they are paid out as a dividend. If your company makes a mistake and loses money, do they draw it from your account?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a17f1adce034b4aca6ac98592c0dde66",
"text": "I think it is clear that this has a lot to do with keeping salaries down. The company has a maximal possible salary limit (i.e. the most they would be willing and able to pay) for what you do. You have a minimal possible salary. Both of you know that the current salary is in between the two figures. For negotiations it would be very useful for you to know the maximal possible salary (i.e. the utmost the company would be willing to pay you to stay and continue); the company on the other hand is obliged to keep costs low and hence would like to know your new minimum acceptable salary so they won't make an offer too high. But if you knew all salaries of people around you -- you could make a better guess about your own maximal possible salary. You probably would over-estimate it because we all tend to over-estimate our own relevance and competence, but it would be a better informed guess at least. The company would hence give up an informational advantage which could lead them to have higher costs. So they will ask you how much you were offered at the competitor (i.e. they will be close to your new minimum acceptable salary) while trying to prevent you from learning anything about the maximal possible salary..",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
41a3f8bd2ab64a559c00cd961e60c551
|
Should I consider my investment in a total stock market fund “diverse”?
|
[
{
"docid": "e4cbddfaee0024ce7a0ec84c4ca73a32",
"text": "You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8358eb696ce30a48a2ee9c9109438ec",
"text": "\"Typically investing in only two securities is not a good idea when trying to spread risk. Even though you are in the VTI which is spread out over a large amount of securites it should in theory reduce portfolio beta to zero, or in this case as close to it as possible. The VTI however has a beta of 1.03 as of close today in New York. This means that the VTI moves roughly in exact tandem as \"\"the market\"\" usually benched against the S&P 500, so this means that the VTI is slightly more volatile than that index. In theory beta can be 0, this would be akin to investing in T-bills which are 'assumed' to be the risk free rate. So in theory it is possible to reduce the risk in your portfolio and apply a more capital protective model. I hope this helps you a bit.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4235c550d5320e788346bb69d057967b",
"text": "\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \"\"up\"\" day or selling on a \"\"down\"\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8eb242062af3deb1b43b4460f7fe2ce",
"text": "As these all seem to be US Equity, just getting one broad based US Equity index might offer similar diversification at lower cost. Over 5 years, 20 basis points in fees will only make about 1% difference. However, for longer periods (retirement saving), it is worth it to aim for the lowest fees. For further diversification, you might want to consider other asset classes, such as foreign equity, fixed income, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "817db6a727dc0ed4825fbb46bf03671e",
"text": "In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing. Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks). This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk. Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other. If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly. You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund. Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable. You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post. The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification. The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ca0a5beb8be371556344354ecbd1a26",
"text": "\"First - yes, take the 2.5%. It could be better, but it's better than many get. Second - choosing from \"\"a bunch\"\" can be tough. Start by looking at the expenses for each. Read a bit of the description, if you can't tell your spouse what the fund's goal is, don't buy it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cd57b14478334506368024bba017f72",
"text": "If you are comfortable with the risk etc, then the main thing to worry about is diversity. For some folks, picking stocks is beyond them, or they have no interest in it. But if it's working for you, and you want to keep doing it, more power to you. If you are comfortable with the risk, you could just as well have ALL your equity position in individual stocks. I would offer only two pieces of advice in that respect. 1) no more than 4% of your total in any one stock. That's a good way to force diversity (provided the stocks are not clustered in a very few sectors like say 'financials'), and make yourself take some of the 'winnings off the table' if a stock has done well for you. 2) Pay Strong attention to Taxes! You can't predict most things, but you CAN predict what you'll have to pay in taxes, it's one of the few known quantities. Be smart and trade so you pay as little in taxes as possible 2A)If you live someplace where taxes on Long term gains are lower than short term (like the USA) then try really really hard to hold 'winners' till they are long term. Even if the price falls a little, you might be up in the net compared to paying out an extra 10% or more in taxes on your gains. Obviously there's a balancing act there between when you feel something is 'done' and the time till it's long term.. but if you've held something for 11 months, or 11 months and 2 weeks, odds are you'd be better off to hold till the one year point and then sell it. 2B) Capture Losses when you have them by selling and buying a similar stock for a month or something. (beware the wash sale rule) to use to offset gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dcdbae126273b8c67efff484a1b52aa",
"text": "Your question is very widely scoped, making it difficult to reply to, but I can provide my thoughts on at least the following part of the question: I have a 401k plan with T. Rowe Price, should I use them for other investments too? Using your employer's decision, on which 401k provider they've chosen, as a basis for making your own decision on a broker for investing $100k when you don't even know what kind of investments you want seems relatively unwise to me, even if one of your focuses is simplicity. That is, unless your $100k is tax-advantaged (e.g. an IRA or other 401k) and your drive for simplicity means you'd be happy to add $100k to any of your existing 401k investments. In which case you should look into whether you can roll the $100k over into your employer's 401k program. For the rest of my answer, I'll assume the $100k is NOT tax-advantaged. I assume you're suggesting this idea because of some perceived bundling of the relationship and ease of dealing with one company & website? Yes, they may be able to combine both accounts into a single login, and you may be able to interact with both accounts with the same basic interface, but that's about where the sharing will end. And even those benefits aren't guaranteed. For example, I still have a separate site to manage my money in my employer's 401k @ Fidelity than I do for my brokerage/banking accounts @ Fidelity. The investment options aren't the same for the two types of accounts, so the interface for making and monitoring investments isn't either. And you won't be able to co-mingle funds between the 401k and non-tax-advantaged money anyway, so you'll have two different accounts to deal with even if you have a single provider. Given that you'll have two different accounts, you might as well pick a broker/provider for the $100k that gives you the best investment options, lowest fees, and best UI experience for your chosen type/goal of investments. I would strongly recommend figuring out how you want to invest the $100k before trying to figure out which provider to use as a broker for doing the investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6733d9bb2f5cf453abc85a901eb8cb9f",
"text": "It's a good question, I am amazed how few people ask this. To summarise: is it really worth paying substantial fees to arrange a generic investment though your high street bank? Almost certainly not. However, one caveat: You didn't mention what kind of fund(s) you want to invest in, or for how long. You also mention an “advice fee”. Are you actually getting financial advice – i.e. a personal recommendation relating to one or more specific investments, based on the investments' suitability for your circumstances – and are you content with the quality of that advice? If you are, it may be worth it. If they've advised you to choose this fund that has the potential to achieve your desired returns while matching the amount of risk you are willing to take, then the advice could be worth paying for. It entirely depends how much guidance you need. Or are you choosing your own fund anyway? It sounds to me like you have done some research on your own, you believe the building society adviser is “trying to sell” a fund and you aren't entirely convinced by their recommendation. If you are happy making your own investment decisions and are merely looking for a place to execute that trade, the deal you have described via your bank would almost certainly be poor value – and you're looking in the right places for an alternative. ~ ~ ~ On to the active-vs-passive fund debate: That AMC of 1.43% you mention would not be unreasonable for an actively managed fund that you strongly feel will outperform the market. However, you also mention ETFs (a passive type of fund) and believe that after charges they might offer at least as good net performance as many actively managed funds. Good point – although please note that many comparisons of this nature compare passives to all actively managed funds (the good and bad, including e.g. poorly managed life company funds). A better comparison would be to compare the fund managers you're considering vs. the benchmark – although obviously this is past performance and won't necessarily be repeated. At the crux of the matter is cost, of course. So if you're looking for low-cost funds, the cost of the platform is also significant. Therefore if you are comfortable going with a passive investment strategy, let's look at how much that might cost you on the platform you mentioned, Hargreaves Lansdown. Two of the most popular FTSE All-Share tracker funds among Hargreaves Lansdown clients are: (You'll notice they have slightly different performance btw. That's a funny thing with trackers. They all aim to track but have a slightly different way of trading to achieve it.) To hold either of these funds in a Hargreaves Lansdown account you'll also pay the 0.45% platform charge (this percentage tapers off for portolio values higher than £250,000 if you get that far). So in total to track the FTSE All Share with these funds through an HL account you would be paying: This gives you an indication of how much less you could pay to run a DIY portfolio based on passive funds. NB. Both the above are a 100% equities allocation with a large UK companies weighting, so won't suit a lower risk approach. You'll also end up invested indiscriminately in eg. mining, tobacco, oil companies, whoever's in the index – perhaps you'd prefer to be more selective. If you feel you need financial advice (with Nationwide) or portfolio management (with Nutmeg) you have to judge whether these services are worth the added charges. It sounds like you're not convinced! In which case, all the best with a low-cost passive funds strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e718f291f54d6f336279987e4dc450",
"text": "First off, I think you are on the right path not paying 3% to a broker; that sort of fee reduces the money you earn significantly in the long term. For your fund investing approach, 10 funds seems like a lot; one of the point of funds is that they are diversified, so I would expect that the 10th fund would give relatively little diversification over the other 9. I would think about targeting only 5 funds. To invest in the funds, rather than trying to invest in all funds every month, put all of the money into a single fund, and rotate the fund month to month. That reduces your transaction costs significantly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "173ef301437d7f08e22684184e2cd0b5",
"text": "\"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled \"\"robo-advisors\"\". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac22618341c07a2678f24e43e1aad47a",
"text": "Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf1d1ea0e3677666ea9f6e49220977f5",
"text": "\"RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that \"\"you believe these will continue\"\" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market. In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this). Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits. Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bb6f2fa37a7dadb2eecc6d87c3f65f2",
"text": "\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \"\"truth\"\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ae1356d942a1f11b3d2191aadab1c0b",
"text": "Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion. Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform. However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.) There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term. By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index. This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position. Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have? But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees. They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does. And fees can be a big drag on total return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48e2f01a68bd1964bc05f9ee1691c54e",
"text": "\"Usually it makes sense to invest in individual companies when you're investing in a \"\"hot\"\" sector. Secular funds have their own risks that can be difficult to measure. First Solar is one of the premier PV players. The fund gives you a false sense of diversification. If you bought a mutual fund in 2000 in the computer space, you'd have pieces of HP, Dell, Apple, IBM, EMC, Cisco, Intel etc. Did the sector perform the same as the companies in it? Nooo. As for renewable energy, IMO that ship has sailed for the \"\"pure play\"\" renewable stocks. I'd look at undervalued companies with exposure to renewables that haven't been hyped up. (or included in a sector mutual fund) Examples for this area? The problem with this sector is that the industry is dependent on government subsidies, and the state of government budgets make that a risky play. Proceed with caution!\"",
"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
|
e440da11061392ca9c579ffae56aef2f
|
Using stable short-term, tax-free municipal bond funds to beat the bank?
|
[
{
"docid": "7cd202188772096642d33487735482d2",
"text": "Banks' savings interest is ridiculous, has always been, compared to other investment options. But there's a reason for that: its safe. You will get your money back, and the interest on it, as long as you're within the FDIC insurance limits. If you want to get more returns - you've got to take more risks. For example, that a locality you're borrowing money to will default. Has happened before, a whole county defaulted. But if you understand the risks - your calculations are correct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "229023ba18d64536fc9058a4ca7c36c0",
"text": "If your main goal is to avoid taxes, municipal bonds are a good strategy, it's not the best way to make more than 1-2% in gains. And kudos for putting money back into the community.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "03c08a7d9d8b1ea7c12a1b8bb4cb0f73",
"text": "http://www.citymayors.com/finance/bonds.html > There were approximately $3.7 trillion outstanding in municipal bonds by 2011 according to a quarterly U.S. Federal Reserve Flow of Funds release in December 2011. This amount included a $840 billion dollar amount missed from prior calculations of outstanding debt issued since 2004.(Kaske, Michelle. “Fed Agrees With Citi on $3.7 Trillion Estimate”. Bloomberg. December 8, 2011.) Still waiting on your magic numbers. What he did was cite a number that represents the entire muni bond market. A number that can be sourced from valid places. The muni bond market IS worth that much in total. At least from the sources we have thus far. You've yet to actually do much of anything but bitch that his numbers (and apparently the MSRB and Fed's numbers) are wrong while good ol crotchpoozie knows the real score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cba82135c4def9b57bde82806051cac8",
"text": "Next year, the Fed plans on unwinding the Bonds and MBS. They'll ramp up to $50 billion a month. At the same time we'll be selling Bonds on the market to finance the debt at a rate of $70 billion a month. I wonder who's going to have the cash to buy the Toxic MBS and the low yield Bonds they'll be unloading on top of the usual Bonds for future debt. Those Bonds will have to pay double digit rates before anyone will buy them. Future generations will just get even more screwed the way the Fed has it planned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d366d4fe216e2fbe1d20e138f28688e1",
"text": "When the laws allow for bonds to be issued for anything other than infrastructure projects, you end up in financial ruin. Politicians can't help themselves, and spend future money, today on day to day expenses. Then future residents, are paying off bonds for items they see no current benefit on. It makes taxes appear high. Look at cities like Chicago as an example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bffcf4ef1809546937edf2f201fc6711",
"text": "Distributions of interest from bonds are taxable as income by the Federal, state and municipal (if applicable) government. End of year fund distributions are subject to capital gains taxes as well. You can minimize taxation by: Note that the only bonds that are guaranteed safe are US Government obligations, as the US government has unlimited taxation powers and the ability to print money. Municipal obligations are generally safe, but there is a risk that municipal governments will default. You can also avoid taxation by not realizing gains. If you buy individual stocks or tax-efficient mutual funds, you will have minimal tax liability until you sell. Also, just wanted to point out that bonds do not equal safety and money markets do not pay sufficient interest to offset inflation, you need a diversified portfolio. Five year treasury notes are only paying 1.3% now, and bond prices drop when interest rates go up. Given the level of Federal spending and the wind-down of the war, its likely that rates will rise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eb29fc32076f8d336f8e79cecafdc86",
"text": "There are two industrial sectors with a recent history of raising revenue and profit faster than inflation: education and health care. While there is indeed some political risk, my assumption is these sectors would continue to beat inflation even under a theoretical socialist President Bernie Sanders. There are several such sector funds available from popular low ER mutual fund companies; I don't believe this forum likes specific commercial investment touting so I decline to name specific ones.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "559bcb23af398eac7d3065409eed3ab5",
"text": "If your mortgage interest is tax-deductible, it's generally a bad idea to pay down the principal on the mortgage because you'd be losing the tax deduction. You could instead invest it in a tax-free municipal bond fund, especially if you're in a high tax bracket (including state and local marginal tax rates). For example, if you have a 5% rate mortgage on your home, you could invest in a 3.5% municipal bond and still come out ahead when you apply the tax deduction to your income at a 44% (33% federal + 7% state + 4% city in NYC) marginal tax rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bc279563293599f6a7ccf87b98342bd",
"text": "I came up with a real way. I saw once the market be so dumb as to allow this to work. Inflation rate = 2.5%. Home interest rate = 3%. Tax deduction = 1%. Money spent on inflation-adjusted I bonds (at the time these paid 0% net, that is 2.5% gross). Result, .5% profit after accounting for inflation. The kicker: Uncle Sam's I bonds are tax free. Sure it's not possible today, but the rates occasionally drop low enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d264bc6a1cf7182321a568f1eedcf29a",
"text": "\"The muni bond business . Are you really too dumb to understand that's how he's referencing it in the article? He's not talking about a specific company or companies numbnuts he's talking about \"\"The business of muni bonds...i.e the total outstanding municipal bond market.\"\". Try some reading comprehension on for size. To walk you through it there are multiple uses of the word 'business'. Among them are the two you're having a real problem with in your reading comprehension. 1. Business = Company: I run a dry cleaning business. 2. Business = Industry: I am in the dry cleaning business. What he is (clearly) referring to when he says \"\"a business worth $3.7 trillion\"\" is \"\"business = industry\"\" in the second manner listed above. You're interpreting it as if he's claiming the first manner. That's incorrect. Factually and grammatically incorrect. Yours is the type of ignorance that morons on Reddit rely on to make their arguments work. I'm done here with you since you don't seem to be able to parse out rudimentary information from an article.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56430c0f9c7afce78e726fbb7b8e8cfc",
"text": "\"For real. AAA treasury bonds are used a safe investment vehicle for the reason of \"\"its the US government, its safe\"\", which is pretty similar to the \"\"dude, who doesnt pay their mortgage?!\"\" line of thinking. You got people dumping money into these derivatives and suddenly someone goes \"\"oh yeah you just bought a bunch of bad debt that should be rated 'junk'. Oops.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b683b5c56dadebd966fea31964fadf1",
"text": "\"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost). It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either. One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what \"\"traditionally\"\" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates? Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40. As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely. I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e7a7d141918f575069aaded7d9d5d53",
"text": "The government pays interest on its debts just like anyone else, but since it's already the government and already taking advantage of credit (your money loaned to it through the bonds), it doesn't need the extra benefit of taxing the interest it pays. **It's better off just issuing bonds at a lower interest rate and letting you keep all the interest, instead of a higher interest rate which will have some amount taxed and returned to it anyway.** The government wants a cut of private loan interest just like any other income, which is why interest on private bonds/loans is taxable. Edit: What about municipal bonds? Wouldn't the federal government benefit from taxing interest on municipal bonds? Municipal bonds are issued to support public infrastructure & services such as construction of water supply infrastructure. Since the goal is to improve facilities for the public benefit, and government programs ostensibly aim to provide public benefits as well, it allows the full proceeds of the bonds to go to the designated projects at the lowest possible interest rate (and the public pays the interest through city rates). Taxing municipal bonds would result in a higher cost to the public for the same end result (because of higher interest rates), with the net interest going to the federal & state governments via income tax on the interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f61c2688a2b82bdbad6909bab943faf",
"text": "\"Yes, definitely. Many municipalities and local governments issue bonds to fund various projects (schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc). You can buy these bonds and in that way invest in these things. In the US these kinds of bonds are tax-free, i.e.: the income they provide is not taxed (by the US government, may be taxed by your State, check local tax laws). There are also dedicated mutual funds that that is all they invest in, if you don't want to deal with picking individual bonds. As to mom-and-pop stores - that would not be as easy, as mom-and-pop stores are by definition family owned and you can invest in them only if you are personally acquainted with them. Instead, you can invest in small regional/local chains, that while not being mom-and-pop, still small enough to be considered \"\"local\"\", but are publicly traded so that you can easily invest in them. You'll have to look for these. You can also use social lending platforms, like Lending Club, which I reviewed on my blog, or others, where you can participate in a lending pool to other people. You can invest in a credit union by opening an account there. Credit unions are owned by their account holders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc00e61174d102fff008e8fa1aad7fa",
"text": "\"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The \"\"return of capital, not return on capital\"\" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9541b7dd3a0d48fd5d36e184aad95bf",
"text": "If you are in an economy which has a decent liquid debt market (corporate bonds, etc.), then you may look into investing in AA or AA+ rated bonds. They can provide higher returns than bank deposits and are virtually risk-free. (Though in severe economic downturns, you can see defaults in even very high-rated bonds, leading to partial or complete loss of value however, this is statistically quite rare). You can make this investment through a debt mutual fund but please make sure that you read through the offer document carefully to understand the investment style of the mutual fund and their expense ratio (which directly affect your returns). In any case, it is always recommended to reach out to an investment adviser who is good with local tax laws to minimize taxes and maximize returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6767c66274c2315423cadd3711bfb23c",
"text": "I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b62880c0f4db34d02c91a572d7a02629
|
Is UK house price spiral connected to debt based monetary system?
|
[
{
"docid": "0e67c38e578f0f510810343ba2120b19",
"text": "\"There are a few factors at work here, supply and demand being the main one. The Office for National Statistics has some good information: http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-housing-and-home-ownership-in-the-uk/ Supply has historically struggled to compete with demand in the UK and this situation has been exacerpated since the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. She set up a variety of schemes to encourage people to own their own home, such as tax relief (MIRAS) and since then home ownership in the UK has increased dramatically. The then conservative government also set up the \"\"right to buy\"\" scheme (in 1980) that allowed council tenants to purchase their council houses at a discounted rate. The effect of this was to increase the number of home owners whilst reducing the amount of housing available for councils to rent to new tenants. Anecdotal evidence (I can't find a documented source to back this up) suggests that councils did not build sufficient new homes to replace those purchased by their ex-tenants. The population of the UK has also increased, by around 10 million since 1980 (around 20%) and this has pushed up demand for housing. House building in the UK has not kept pace with these factors that has led to a shortage of supply that has pushed up prices. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northern-ireland/2013/sty-population-changes.html There's another factor at play here as well. If you go back to the 1970s around 53% of women would go out to work but in 2013 this figure increased to 67% as it became more common for households to have double incomes. This extra supply of cash also pushed up house prices. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_328352.pdf Your question regards a debt based monetary system is not entirely clear, but there are limitations put onto how much money people can borrow that are potentially limiting how much house prices can rise by. Today most lenders are more conservative in how much they will lend but this wasn't the case in the mid 2000s when house prices rose very quickly. Lenders are more cautious today after the crash of the late 2000s, but things are begining to relax again and they are starting to lend more which could in turn lead to further house price rises in line with what was seen in the 2000s. Recessions have coincided with house prices falling back or at least being stable. In the 1980s house prices trebled from 1980 to 1988 but then fell back a little as the recession hit, before starting to rise again in 1997. This rise was sustained until 2008 during which time prices trebled again. Based on this you could assume prices will treble again as we come out of the recession, as long as this is sustained for 8 years or so. However, as the potential for more households to become double income is reduced (high female employment already) and wages are unlikely to raise that quickly, this may not be realistic, unless the mortgage lenders become extremely lax, to the point of reckless! To answer your other question, about the affordability of housing, this will be based on the level of wages in the UK and how strict or lax the lenders are, also taking into effect the availability of housing for purchase. If wages rise, house prices will rise, if lenders are willing to lend more money, house prices will rise and if demand continues to outrstip supply, prices will rise. None of the major UK political parties are likely to solve the problems of population growth and not enough houses being built so it is likely prices will rise but you could argue that they are not far off a peak based on current wages and lenders attitudes. If the UK economy continues to recover from the recession, it is possible they will fuel another housing boom by lending ever increasing salary multiples as happened in the 2000s, unless there is government intervention, ie regulation of the lenders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81df6a5235dad320c3fa1c7971100e9e",
"text": "\"No. Rural Scotland has exactly the same monetary system, and not the same bubble. Monaco (the other example given) doesn't even have its own monetary system but uses the Euro. Look instead to the common factor: a lot of demand for limited real estate. Turning towards the personal finance part of it, we know from experience that housing bubbles may \"\"burst\"\" and housing prices may drop suddenly by ~30%, sometimes more. This is a financial risk if you must sell. Yet on the other hand, the fundamental force that keeps prices in London higher than average isn't going away. The long-term risk often is manageable. A 30% drop isn't so bad if you own a house for 30 years.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "17b51bc610cbce0f58d07b01916d0533",
"text": "Not anytime soon, I suspect, but not necessarily for financial reasons. I found this interesting, including the link to the five tests, but I think that this topic is only partially judged through financial eyes, there's a lot of political issues around this with national identity/immigration issues already in the spot light as well as political aspirations. If there will be a call in the near future to join the Euro, how would that reflect on the financial industry in the UK from a PR perspective? and on the political leadership and how it managed the financial crisis? I believe that it is in the interest of all the people in the high positions to show the country getting back on track rather than making ground shaking moves. But what do I know....:-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "8ab90eea050860a8a0fd05acc26713a6",
"text": "\"To understand the Twist, you need to understand what the Yield Curve is. You must also understand that the price of debt is inverse to the interest rate. So when the price of bonds (or notes or bills) rises, that means the current price goes up, and the yield to maturity has gone down. Currently (Early 2012) the short term rate is low, close to zero. The tools the fed uses, setting short term rates for one, is exhausted, as their current target is basically zero for this debt. But, my mortgage is based on 10yr rates, not 1 yr, or 30 day money. The next step in the fed's effort is to try to pull longer term rates down. By buying back 10 year notes in this quantity, the fed impacts the yield at that point on the curve. Buying (remember supply/demand) pushes the price up, and for debt, a higher price equates to lower yield. To raise the money to do this, they will sell short term debt. These two transactions effectively try to \"\"twist\"\" the curve to pull long term rates lower and push the economy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c64cffb9f5b04dd8da7726e4221e02f7",
"text": "Yes there is an inverse relationship but that's how it's meant to work. Debt creates money. Banks do lend out customers savings for return interest as the bank can make a profit rather than the cash just sitting there. The process of Lending pumps money into the economy that wouldn't be there otherwise so it creates money. The banks will either have a cash deficit or surplus at end of each day and either need to borrow from other banks to balance their books or if in surplus lend to other banks to make interest because that's more profitable than holding the cash surplus. The overnight cash rate then determines interest rates we pay. High private debt occurs when lots of people are investing & buying things so there is stimulation and growth in the economy. A lot more tax is being paid in these periods so government debt is lower because they are getting lots of tax money. Also To stimulate the economy into this growth period the government usually sells off large cash bonds (lowering their debt) to release cash into the economy, the more cash available the less banks have to borrow to cover deficits on overnight cash market and the lower interest rates will be. Lower interest rates = more borrowing and higher Private debt. The government can't let growth get out of control as they don't want high inflation so they do the opposite to slow down growth, I.e buy up cash bonds and take money out of economy causing higher interest rates and less borrowing = More debt for government less for private.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d705f9393e7eb4d9507c24e6edaa7e59",
"text": "\"I'm not intimately familiar with the situation in Australia, but in the US the powers that be have adopted an interventionist philosophy. The Federal Reserve (Central Bank) is \"\"buying back\"\" US Gov't debt to keep rates low, and the government is keeping mortgage rates low buy buying mortgages with the proceeds of the cheap bond sales. While this isn't directly related to Australia, it is relevant because the largest capital markets are in the US and influence the markets in Australia. In the US, the CPI is a survey of all urban consumers. If you're a younger, middle class consumer with income growth ahead of you, your costs are going to shift more rapidly than an elderly or poor person who already owns or is in subsidized housing, and doesn't spend as much on transportation. For example, my parents are in their early 60's and are living in the house that I grew up in, which they own free and clear. There are alot of people like them, and they aren't affected by the swing in housing prices that we've seen in the last decade.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "432f55ef513524ca36a935720a54e195",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2073.en.pdf) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Inflation Housing Demand + 0 + + 0 0 Mon Pol + + 0 0 Loans Supply Lend Rates 0 + 0 + A. Supply A. Demand + + + The first column lists the endogenous variables of the VAR, which react to the shocks reported in the first row: housing demand shocks, monetary policy innovations, shocks to the credit supply, aggregate supply and demand shocks. > The patterns used to distinguish aggregate demand and supply shocks are commonly used in the literature, we are able to discriminate house prices shocks from loans supply and lending rates shocks on the ground of economic theory. > In Spain, in the absence of other shocks, if the growth rates of real consumption had been driven exclusively by housing demand shocks, they would have been largest around 1995 and 2004, and lowest in 2012.18 The cumulative effect of housing demand shocks is rather muted in the remaining countries. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6gxbr4/ecb_house_prices_and_monetary_policy_in_the_euro/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~142717 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*: **shock**^#1 **price**^#2 **House**^#3 **housing**^#4 **policy**^#5\"",
"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": "72219980609d159014b02d59a87983e8",
"text": "\"I don't know what angle you're trying to push or why, but are you also saying that Kenichi Ueda of the IMF and Beatrice Weder Di Mauro of the University of Mainz are similarly lacking the understanding of financial concepts when they published a [paper](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12128.pdf) \"\"Quantifying Structural Subsidy Values for Systemically Important Financial Institutions\"\"? Are you suggesting a similar \"\"entire shaker of salt\"\" when they \"\"estimate[d] the structural subsidy values by exploiting expectations of state support embedded in credit ratings and by using long-run average value of rating bonus\"\"? Should we really be so skeptical when they conclude: >Section III has provided estimates of the value of the subsidy to SIFIs in terms of the overall ratings. Using the range of our estimates, we can summarize that a one-unit increase in government support for banks in advanced economies has an impact equivalent to 0.55 to 0.9 notches on the overall long-term credit rating at the end-2007. And, this effect increased to 0.8 to 1.23 notches by the end-2009 (Summary Table 8). At the end-2009, the effect of the government support is almost identical between the group of advanced countries and developing countries. Before the crisis, governments in advanced economies played a smaller role in boosting banks’ long-term ratings. These results are robust to a number of sample selection tests, such as testing for differential effects across developing and advanced countries, for both listed and non-listed banks, and also correcting for bank parental support and alternative estimations of an individual bank’s strength. I ask because this article is founded on that study - linked to by Bloomberg which is then linked to in OP's Huffpo article. While you can certainly claim that Mark Gongloff \"\"shows a basic lack of understanding\"\" of whatever, why don't you put some skin in the game and demonstrate how he somehow misses the entire point of that study, or better yet really wow us by de-bunking that study.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d9319ff56e68d79176f284a1700fccb",
"text": "Yes, but only because the US had a huge crash. Other economies have, in the absence of any credible *real* growth strategy, continued pumping housing. I still think student debt will erode incomes further as it's simply pulling forward demand that will drag on incomes later. When nearly everyone has a degree then nearly everyone doesn't get paid much more for having one. By the same principle of supply and demand all the boomer downsizing vs impoverished 30-something lack of upsizing will mean prices will fall.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "799a9ee5e202bf0686256b32b8c4a361",
"text": "\"As Michael McGowan says, just because gold has gone up lots recently does not mean it will continue to go up by the same amount. This plot: shows that if your father had bought $20,000 in gold 30 years ago, then 10 years ago he would have slightly less than $20,000 to show for it. Compare that with the bubble in real estate in the US: Update: I was curious about JoeTaxpayer's question: how do US house prices track against US taxpayer's ability to borrow? To try to answer this, I used the house price data from here, the 30 year fixed mortgages here and the US salary information from here. To calculate the \"\"ability to borrow\"\" I took the US hourly salary information, multiplied by 2000/12 to get a monthly salary. I (completely arbitrarily) assumed that 25 per cent of the monthly salary would be used on mortgage payments. I then used Excel's \"\"PV\"\" (Present Value) function to calculate the present value of the thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The resulting graph is below. The correlation coefficient between the two plots is 0.93. There are so many caveats on what I've done in ~15 minutes, I don't want to list them... but it certainly \"\"gives one furiously to think\"\" !! Update 2: OK, so even just salary information correlates very well with the house price increases. And looking at the differences, we can see that perhaps there was a spike or bubble in house prices over and above what might be expected from salary-only or ability-to-borrow.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50c7e3ea42c36ece76e0b2aa28f33a4d",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cityfalcon.com/blog/investments/student-loan-debt-new-mortgage-crisis/?utm_campaign=ao_reddit) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Costs of living, especially for those attending universities in cities like New York or London, also account for a nontrivial portion of the debt. > Is the student debt bubble in the United States the next mortgage crisis? > One major difference between the student debt problem and the mortgage crisis is the lack of CDOs and CDSs. The thread that connected banks, governments, individuals and economies were the CDO and CDS. With a complex system of mortgage securitization and insurance against those securities, the system effectively collapsed itself. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79mt1s/student_loan_debt_the_new_mortgage_crisis_in_2018/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~237528 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*: **debt**^#1 **student**^#2 **education**^#3 **economy**^#4 **borrowed**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b68c9e7304d736d1aa6ba5855c8f9e52",
"text": "NB - I live in Surrey and bought my house in January 2014. If you don't have a very social life, it does pay to stay outside London. Places outside London are cheap and you will get a better deal in relation to houses or flats as compared to London. I feel very priced out of the market regarding London mortgages I will strongly question you logic behind this ? Why only London ? Why not live in the commuter belt outside London. Good places to reside, good schools, nice neighbourhood and away from the hustle and bustle of London. Many of my colleagues commute from Cambridge and Oxford daily into Central London and they laugh at people who want to buy a house in London, just for the sake of buying a house. It seems that the housing market is generally in a bubble due to being distorted by the finance market London house market is different from the rest of UK. People from overseas tend to invest in London property market, so it is always inflated. Even the property tax hasn't deterred many. I could look into buying somewhere and renting it out You are trying to join the same people, because of whom you have been put out of the housing market. I strictly question this logic unless your mortgage is less than the rent you pay and what rent you get. Buy a roof over your head first, then think of profiting from property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e44e5d398d5efd28d6c1262b52e48099",
"text": "\"So I'm in Australia and we have our very own housing price/credit bubble right now (which is finally deflating) and I'll try explain it as I understand. I welcome anyone to chime in and correct me. The problem we faced (still face to a large degree) is the idea of rising asset prices and how this fuels a feedback loop into increasing personal debt, all based on the false assumption that house prices always go up. Now before I continue, house prices *do* always go up in the long run, but so does the cost of everything and we call that inflation, adjusting for this effect usually reveals that house prices are cyclical in the long term and never really 'grow'. So that aside we in Australia recently saw a long period of increasing house prices (as did the USA and Europe, and more recently China), the thing about house price is it is your 'equity', I'll try and explain: (all figures are made up to provide a simple example) if you borrow $200,000 to buy a house that costs $250,000 you owe the bank 80% of the equity (what your home is 'worth', and notionally this is value that you own) in your home and the bank will be happy, remembering that they make money on your interest payments, not your principal repayments. If your house then increases in value to $300,000 but you still owe $200,000 then you now owe only 66% of your equity. The bank sees you as a lower risk and encourages you to borrow more to get back up to that sweet spot they had before of 80% - this is a nice tradeoff between risk and reward for the bank. You, the consumer, have just been mailed a new credit card with a 50k limit (hypothetical) and theres a new iMac being released next week, and you really did want to trade in your 5yr old car (see where this is going yet?). Not only is this type of spending given a mighty boost but consumers feel like this house thing has done them very well and suddenly they have the ability to borrow lots more money, why not get a second house and do it all over again? The added demand for investment housing drives prices, throw in some generous government incentives (here and in the USA) and demand is pushed hard, prices grow more and the whole thing feeds back into itself. People feel richer, spend more from their credit cards, buy another house, etc. But what happens if your house 'value' then drops to $240k? The bank now sees you as a high risk, so do the bank's investors, you have negative equity, the bank demands the difference paid back to it or it might take your home. Somehow, nobody believed this would happen. Hopefully you start to see the picture? In Australia we are now facing a slow melt in housing prices which has not yet hurt en masse but it has dried up the credit cards, retails spending has collapsed and everyone is worried about the future. Now to realise where the USA got to you have to also understand that banks were not merely asking for a maximum of 80% owed on the asset, many of them let this figure go to 100%, since hey prices always go up, right? They then in some cases went further and neglected to look into your income and confirm you could even *repay* your loan. Sounds dodgey? This is just the setup. Remember I mentioned the bank's investors? Well banks/smart people basically figured out a clever way of 'dealing with' the risk of a few outliers with bad financial situations by collecting large numbers of home loans into a single entity and selling it on. Loans were graded according to risk and I believe they were even cut up into smaller pieces (10% of your high risk loan assigned to 10 different 'debt objects' with different risk profiles). These 'collateralised debt obligations' were traded from one bank/investment firm to another with everyone happily accepting the risk profiles until eventually nobody knew what risk was where. Think about it like \"\"I'll throw 10 high risk loans, 50 medium risk loans and 40 low risk loans into a pot, stir it up and sell the soup as 'pretty safe' \"\". This all seemed like a very good idea until it gradually became clear just how much of these loans were in the 'extremely stupid high risk' category. This is probably extremely confusing by now, but thats the point, investors could no longer judge how risky an investment in a bank or financial institute was, the market did not correct for any of this until it was all too late. The moral of the story is when people tell you an investment is guaranteed to make you money, you stay away from that investment. And to specifically answer your question you can't solely blame government incentives as you might be able to see, but they play a part in a giant orchestra, there are many factors that drive this sort of stupidity, stupidity being the primary one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6e5ae4073483fc8fe8353bc8a8c31ad",
"text": "The Shiller data is inflation adjusted. In effect, a flat line means that long term, housing rises with inflation, no more no less. There's no argument, just the underlying data to support his charts. This, among them. As much as I respect Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller, his approach and analysis of the boom ignored interest rates. Say we look at a $50K earning couple. This is just below median income. At 9%, they qualify to borrow $145K. As rates fell to 4%, they qualify for $244K. Same fixed 30 term. Ignoring all other factors, the swing in rates will generate an oscillation around the long term trend. And my own data crunching suggests the equilibrium median home price will tend toward the price supported by the median income. A similar, but not identical question - Why can't house prices be out of tune with salaries? In response to Chan-Ho's comment - I'd imagine Shiller understood the interest impact. To clarify, the chart, as presented, ignores it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8244db9b6d7cb8ae986c5b82432cdec",
"text": "Most people today (and maybe regardless of era) are irrational and don't properly valuate many of their purchases, nor are they emotionally equipped to do the math properly, including projection into the future and applying probabilities. This compounds. Imagine that each individual is bound to others by a rubber band and can stretch in a certain direction. The more your neighbors stretch, the more you are both motivated to stretch and able to stretch. These are crudely analogous to consumer wants as well as allowed consumer debt. The banks are also within this network of rubber bands and much of their balance sheet is based on how far they've stretched on the aggregate of all connected bands (counting others debts as their credit because it will presumably be repaid), and every so often enough people's feet slip that a lot of rubber bands snap back. This is a bubble bursting.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9bc6a7b9c51915269bbf42b399651755
|
Is it unreasonable to double your investment year over year?
|
[
{
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "3920dc7fad00ba1d6cb961f24716c96a",
"text": "Yes, because you cannot have an exponential growth rate that is faster than the rate at which the economy grows on the long term. 100% growth is much more than the few percent at which the economy grows, so your share in the World economy would approximately double every year. Today the value of all the assets in the World economy is about $200 trillion. If you start with an investment of just $1000 and this doubles every year, then you'll own all the World's assets in 37.5 years, assuming this doesn't grow. You can, of course, take into account that it does grow, this will yield a slightly larger time before you own the entire World.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27aa45737bb833845898f3a5a750f43f",
"text": "\"Wealth gained hastily will dwindle but whoever gathers little by little will increase it. Proverbs 13:11 (ESV) Put another way... \"\"Easy come, easy go\"\" You cannot sustain 100% annual ROI. Sooner than you think you will hit a losing streak. Casinos depend on this truth. You may win a few rolls of the dice. But betting your winnings will eventually cause you to lose all.\"",
"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": "f9d0671f97e043bc4c5aab149a7f419b",
"text": "It is not unheard of. Celebrity investors such as Warren Buffet and Carl Icahn gained notoriety by more than doubling investments some years, with a few very stellar trades and bets. Doubling, as in a 100% gain, is actually conservative if you want to play that game, as 500%, 1200% and greater gains are possible and were achieved by the two otherwise unrelated people I mentioned. This reality is opposite of the comparably pitiful returns that Warren Buffet teaches baby boomers about, but compounding on 2-5% gains annually is a more likely way to build wealth. It is unreasonable to say and expect that you will get the outcome of doubling an investment year over year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ce800bdc507c542f7639aa0286f04b8",
"text": "\"Nobody has consistently doubled their investment year after year, not even the \"\"greats\"\" like George Soros and Warren Buffett. Mr. Buffett's average annual returns have been over 20% for over 50 years. That's about twice the American average of 10%-11% a year. So Mr. Buffett has been \"\"twice as good as average\"\" for his adult life. That's like having a 200 IQ. And in a poll taken in 2000, he was rated the greatest portfolio manager of all time. No lesser person could hope to do better. What has happened is that people may double their investment in ONE year, then \"\"give some back\"\" the following year. Or else go through several years of \"\"average\"\" 10%-15% returns. The reason is that they will have an investment style that works for one particular market, but not for all markets, so they will have to wait for their \"\"best\"\" market, to have their \"\"best\"\" year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d2417fd1e8eb8a7ede06951fc8de9c8",
"text": "\"Yes. The definition of unreasonable shows as \"\"not guided by or based on good sense.\"\" 100% years require a high risk. Can your one stock double, or even go up three fold? Sure, but that would likely be a small part of your portfolio. Overall, long term, you are not likely to beat the market by such high numbers. That said, I had 2 years of returns well over 100%. 1998, and 1999. The S&P was up 26.7% and 19.5%, and I was very leverage in high tech stock options. As others mentioned, leverage was key. (Mark used the term 'gearing' which I think is leverage). When 2000 started crashing, I had taken enough off the table to end the year down 12% vs the S&P -10%, but this was down from a near 50% gain in Q1 of that year. As the crash continued, I was no longer leveraged and haven't been since. The last 12 years or so, I've happily lagged the S&P by a few basis points (.04-.02%). Also note, Buffet has returned an amazing 15.9%/yr on average for the last 30 years (vs the S&P 11.4%). 16% is far from 100%. The last 10 year, however, his return was a modest 8.6%, just .1% above the S&P.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d98a1a97eb6179caef1f1e5c9c6958c7",
"text": "\"Not at all impossible. What you need is Fundamental Analysis and Relationship with your investment. If you are just buying shares - not sure you can have those. I will provide examples from my personal experience: My mother has barely high school education. When she saw house and land prices in Bulgaria, she thought it's impossibly cheap. We lived on rent in Israel, our horrible apartment was worth $1M and it was horrible. We could never imagine buying it because we were middle class at best. My mother insisted that we all sell whatever we have and buy land and houses in Bulgaria. One house, for example, went from $20k to EUR150k between 2001 and 2007. But we knew Bulgaria, we knew how to buy, we knew lawyers, we knew builders. The company I currently work for. When I joined, share prices were around 240 (2006). They are now (2015) at 1500. I didn't buy because I was repaying mortgage (at 5%). I am very sorry I didn't. Everybody knew 240 is not a real share price for our company - an established (+30 years) software company with piles of cash. We were not a hot startup, outsiders didn't invest. Many developers and finance people WHO WORK IN THE COMPANY made a fortune. Again: relationship, knowledge! I bought a house in the UK in 2012 - everyone knew house prices were about to go up. I was lucky I had a friend who was a surveyor, he told me: \"\"buy now or lose money\"\". I bought a little house for 200k, it is now worth 260k. Not double, but pretty good money! My point is: take your investment personally. Don't just dump money into something. Once you are an insider, your risk will be almost mitigated and you could buy where you see an opportunity and sell when you feel you are near the maximal real worth of your investment. It's not hard to analyse, it's hard to make a commitment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb7a295dd66a62cf18a6b8763ed80268",
"text": "I know it may not last longer but i was able to 2.5x my wealth over last 2 years.(2016, 2017 cont) I was successfully able to convert 70k into 452k in 21months. Now at this amount, I am really worried and want to take all the profit. I agree that I have been lucky with these returns but it was not all outright luck. Now my plan is to take 100k of it and try high risk investments while investing 350k in index funds.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bbeb069f1de0e2d785f8e9e064473933",
"text": "Your initial investment in this case is $9 on the first morning. Every other morning you are using part of your profits to buy the new piece of jewelry, so you are actually not investing any new funds. So each day you are effectively keeping $1 of your profits and re_re-investing $9. But your initial investment of your own funds is only the first $9. In other words if you only had $9 in the bank at the start of the year you could make $365 profits during the year and finish up with $374 in the the bank at the end of the year.",
"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": "fa9651ecd8b5e06c2bca0c7386e774cc",
"text": "To answer your precise question, your plans are not at all misguided, and are in fact very reasonable. You are clearly financially very comfortable, and from the tone of your post it sounds like you value security and simplicity over maximizing your investment return over the coming years. If money was the most important thing to you then you would stay shackled to your high paying jobs. @JoeTaxpayer's answer has some great information for a person who is interested in maximizing their investment return. If you followed that advice, you might increase your return on investments by up to 1%/year (I'm just throwing a ball park number out there). So your choice is simple. Peace of mind on one hand and perhaps 1% additional return on investments on the other hand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5e1360f3a804475b28a1f26149f104b",
"text": "Anybody that offers a bigger return than a deposit claiming 100% safe is a fraud. There is always a risk: Yes, you can gain 30% in a year, but nobody can guarantee that you'll repeat that gain the next. My own experience (and I do take risks), one year I go up, the next year I go down...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4fd3346b362b43bc4afa5ecfc367ae3",
"text": "\"I'd agree that this can seem a little unfair, but it's an unavoidable consequence of the necessary practicality of paying out dividends periodically (rather than continuously), and differential taxation of income and capital gains. To see more clearly what's going on here, consider buying stock in a company with extremely simple economics: it generates a certain, constant earnings stream equivalent to $10 per share per annum, and redistributes all of that profit as periodic dividends (let's say once annually). Assume there's no intrinsic growth, and that the firm's instrinsic value (which we'll say is $90 per share) is completely neutral to any other market factors. Under these economics, this stock price will show a \"\"sawtooth\"\" evolution, accruing from $90 to $100 over the course of a year, and resetting back down to $90 after each dividend payment. Now, if I am invested in this stock for some period of time, the fair outcome would be that I receive an appropriately time-weighted share of the $10 annual earnings per share, less my tax. If I am invested for an exact calendar year, this works as I'd expect: the stock price on any given day in the year will be the same as it was exactly one year earlier, so I'll realise zero capital gain, but I'll have collected a $10 taxed dividend along the way. On the other hand, what if I am invested for exactly half a year, spanning a dividend payment? I receive a dividend payment of $10 less tax, but I make a capital loss of -$5. Overall, pre-tax, I'm up $5 per share as expected. However, the respective tax treatment of the dividend payment (which is classed as income) and the capital gains is likely to be different. In particular, to benefit from the \"\"negative\"\" taxation of the capital loss I need to have some positive capital gain elsewhere to offset it - if I can't do that, I'm much worse off compared to half the full-year return. Further, even if I can offset against a gain elsewhere the effective taxation rates are likely to be different - but note that this could work for or against me (if my capital gains rate is greater than my income tax rate I'd actually benefit). And if I'm invested for half a year, but not spanning a dividend, I make $5 of pure capital gains, and realise a different effective taxation rate again. In an ideal world I'd agree that the effective taxation rate wouldn't depend on the exact timing of my transactions like this, but in reality it's unavoidable in the interests of practicality. And so long as the rules are clear, I wouldn't say it's unfair per se, it just adds a bit of complexity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53dd714fdcde93886c79bef5635ec6a9",
"text": "\"First, please allow me to recommend that you do not try gimmickry when financials do give expected results. It's a sure path to disaster and illegality. The best route is to first check if accounts are being properly booked. If they are then there is most likely a problem with the business. Anything out of bounds yet properly booked is indeed the problem. Now, the reason why your results seem strange is because investments are being improperly booked as inventory; therefore, the current account is deviating badly from the industry mean. The dividing line for distinguishing between current and long term assets is one year; although, modern financial accounting theorists & regulators have tried to smudge that line, so standards do not always adhere to that line. Therefore, any seedlings for resale should be booked as inventory while those for potting as investment. It's been some time since I've looked at the standards closely, but this used to fall under \"\"property, plant, & equipment\"\". Generally, it is a \"\"capital expenditure\"\" by the oldest definition. It is not necessary to obsess over initial bookings because inventory turnover will quickly resolve itself, so a simple running or historical rate can be applied to the seedling purchases. The books will now appear more normal, and better subsequent strategic decisions can now be made.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2698016794b852de38938d5a5e422209",
"text": "No, you can't. The limits are contribution limits, not limits on the value of the investment. If you contributed $5,500 for 2015, you are done contributing for that tax year. You are free to contribute another $5,500 for 2016.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f4b4c9c8645edfa232b9beab747db47",
"text": "\"This post may be old anyhow here's my 2 cents. Real world...no. Compounding is overstated. I have 3 mutual funds, basically index funds, you can go look them up. vwinx, spmix, spfix in 11 years i've made a little over 12,000 on 50,000 invested. That averages 5%. That's $1,200 a year about. Not exactly getting rich on the compounding \"\"myth?\"\". You do the math. I would guess because overly optimistic compounding gains are based on a straight line gains. Real world...that aint gonna happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbe9180f1cff5262fcf27862358c007a",
"text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in, which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a \"\"blip\"\", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are \"\"wrong\"\" and that the \"\"true price\"\" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are \"\"sound\"\"). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a \"\"balanced\"\" portfolio -- without putting \"\"all your eggs in one basket\"\" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "0964d9db32ade538d1fd0fdb8d764ecf",
"text": "Something really does seem seedy that if I invest $2500, that I'll make above 50k if the stock doubles. Is it really that easy? You only buy or sell on margin. Think of when the stock moves in the opposite direction. You will loose 50k. You probably didn't look into that. Investment will vanish and then you will have debt to repay. Holding for long term in CFD accounts are charged per day. Charges depends on different service providers. CFD isn't and should not be used for long term. It is primarily for trading in the short term, maybe a week at the maximum. Have a look at the wikipedia entry and educate yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c007d2f764ed54de2b635b1ceb950c4",
"text": "\"(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing \"\"tl;dr\"\" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish. They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify. The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market. Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6550eb8b1f267dd995068f20e63ae48f",
"text": "My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d441273b7652a20071b085a53fb989",
"text": "they are, but they aren't regulated so they're great for the people underwriting, brokering, clearing, and facilitating the trading. doesn't matter that the 50+ yo guys selling it don't understand blockchain, or even the fundamental reason why these coins supposedly have value, the customers don't either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ad772daa2134a1fcd7ebaee7cdc0945",
"text": "The one whose order gets to the exchange first. The exchange receives the orders and arranges them in First-In-First-Out order, by which they're then executed. At some point it is synchronized and put into a list. Whoever gets to that point first - gets the deal.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8b8346b27993c3955f9aae4b7969a811
|
Why certain currencies are considered safe havens in times of turmoil
|
[
{
"docid": "04380472d698ba617ee0248bf26c8164",
"text": "It's a combination of neutrality, economic power, economic freedom, a history of stability, and tradition. In the case of the Japanese yen, it's obviously economic power that is the determining factor, as Japan is the world's third largest economy. Switzerland, on the other hand, is only the 19th largest economy, but ranks very high in all the other criteria.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1757d95cb174dec0d19ffc5db8c39e7f",
"text": "\"Switzerland is presumably where one moves the money in case of an apocalypse; although, they have lost some of that appeal now with the tax reporting to the EU and USA. Switzerland has a very old, stable banking industry, but this isn't the only appeal. Their reputation for safeguarding money, be it despot or Nazi, is most of the attraction. Low to no taxes is the second. Also, there isn't much financially illegal despite recent changes. Put that all together, and if a country is about to go to hell in handbasket because it borrowed too much or goes to war while Switzerland stays stable and very strict about paying depositors, those residents are going to try to move as much money to Switzerland as possible before its confiscated for one reason or another, sending the CHF up. Japan is a different duck. They have persistently ~0% inflation thus low nominal and real interest rates. With them, the so-called \"\"cash & carry trade\"\" or more ubiquitous \"\"carry trade\"\" dominates. Many investors choose to borrow in JPY to buy investments denominated in other currencies. If the countries of those other currencies are about to take their residents' money or go to war, putting money at jeopardy, the residents doing the carry trading will try to unwind their levered investments to reduce risk, sending the JPY up.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "68679dfcbf90d701f3a3ee8be64ab27f",
"text": "There's no way the greek government has the cash to defend a peg. Defending a peg takes a lot of cash. If your currency goes above the peg, you need to print more. If it goes below the peg, you need to buy it back, with euros for example. Greece has no euros, and so cannot defend a peg.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38a479e3fac8a4d4deb5d8caa993d72a",
"text": "\"Having savings only in your home currency is relatively 'low risk' compared with other types of 'low diversification'. This is because, in a simple case, your future cash outflows will be in your home currency, so if the GBP fluctuates in value, it will (theoretically) still buy you the same goods at home. In this way, keeping your savings in the same currency as your future expenditures creates a natural hedge against currency fluctuation. This gets complicated for goods imported from other countries, where base price fluctuates based on a foreign currency, or for situations where you expect to incur significant foreign currency expenditures (retirement elsewhere, etc.). In such cases, you no longer have certainty that your future expenditures will be based on the GBP, and saving money in other currencies may make more sense. In many circumstances, 'diversification' of the currency of your savings may actually increase your risk, not decrease it. Be sure you are doing this for a specific reason, with a specific strategy, and not just to generally 'spread your money around'. Even in case of a Brexit, consider: what would you do with a bank account full of USD? If the answer is \"\"Convert it back to GBP when needed (in 6 months, 5 years, 30, etc.), to buy British goods\"\", then I wouldn't call this a way to reduce your risk. Instead, I would call it a type of investment, with its own set of risks associated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9dab648c073d7d951d574e279b4de7",
"text": "Dollar is the lingua franca of the financial industry and unluckily it is the US currency. It is till today considered the most safest investment bet, that is why you have China possesing $3 trillion of US debt, as an investment albiet a very safe one. Financial investors get in queue to by US bonds the moment they are put up for sale. Because of the AAA rating the investors consider it to be safe at a specific rate. Now when you lower the credit rating you are indirectly asking the US government that you want a higher return(yield) on your investments. When you ask for higher yields, it translates into higher interest rates (money US would get for bonds issued decreases and so more bonds are issued). So you basically start looking at a slowdown in consumer spendings households and businesses. With already defaults, repossesions and lesser spending, the slowdown would increase manifold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "379efa836cc7a4c7502ea05e87ecfafc",
"text": "Currencies don't have intrinsic value. Just because you have to pay taxes in USD does not mean it has intrinsic value. The government could theoretically switch currency every second, not that that will ever happen. But yes the USD is supported by the US government and that's like a safety net for the value of the USD. Bitcoin doesn't have a government accepting bitcoin in taxes (except maybe liberland or something) so BTC doesn't have that safenet. But with such a liquid market and millions of buyorders bitcoin doesn't really need a safenet. There will always be demand. I prefer a scarce currency with growing demand than an inflationary currency backed by a corrupt government that loses value over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "233fefaa0be88b6404682ad147c28974",
"text": "If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e27e77f9b48e65c7e51b05e7102406c",
"text": "Here's a point in favor of central banks: With a central bank in the middle making sure payments clear, transactions can happen with near perfect trust. When a bank has a daylight overdraft, the Fed covers it. When a bank needs overnight funding, the Fed provides it. If a bank needs vault cash, a truck shows up from the Fed. Without this, no one could ever be entirely confident the other party was money-good. With a volume of transactions that can amount to annual GDP in as little as six days, this level of trust is critical to a smoothly functioning system of payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c3ea2d85b77310aaa66303551243d31",
"text": "Precious metals also tend to do well during times of panic. You could invest in gold miners, a gold or silver ETF or in physical bullion itself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86516c0d3489f7e5c5913e2155b60eb1",
"text": "But then why wouldn't that be their primary mode to control their currency now/are they starting/hinting at doing so to move away from US treasuries? There must be benefits to Treasury purchasing that seems better to them, maybe that QE can't do alone? And I have to imagine with the tenuous nature of their financial system, the shock alone from losing access to the Dollar (and before they could use QE to devalue the currency back down) would be a major issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fbe5c263a53570193750b611429aaa0",
"text": "Because people trade currency in exchange for goods and services. They can easily prevent competition by violent means or by having control of the market through market share. Price can be controlled by the threat of super low prices in order to drive out competing businesses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaf385e8e4cec04116c0701d991180b7",
"text": "I think your approach of looking exclusively at USD deposits is a prudent one. Here are my responses to your questions. 1) It is highly unlikely that a USD deposit abroad be converted to local currency upon withdrawal. The reason for offering a deposit in a particular currency in the first place is that the bank wants to attract funds in this currency. 2) Interest rate is a function of various risks mostly supply and demand, central bank policy, perceived risk etc. In recent years low-interest rate policy as led by U.S., European and Japanese central banks has led particularly low yields in certain countries disregarding their level of risk, which can vary substantially (thus e.g. Eastern Europe has very low yields at the moment in spite of its perceived higher risk). Some countries offer depository insurance. 3) I would focus on banks which are among the largest in the country and boast good corporate governance i.e. their ownership is clean and transparent and they are true to their business purpose. Thus, ownership is key, then come financials. Country depository insurance, low external threat (low war risk) is also important. Most banks require a personal visit in order to open the account, thus I wouldn't split much further than 2-3 banks, assuming these are good quality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50e236ec0f96a0593fda16098b715f5e",
"text": "Public debt and risk of currency devaluation are two very, very different things. Until the BRICS are able to buy commodities on a significant scale using a market basket of their own currencies, the USD will remain one of the (if not the) safest currencies in the world.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "209158c83940631e2c9f741f0da36157",
"text": "As mentioned in several other answers, the main reason for high rates is to maximize profit. However, here is another, smaller effect: The typical flow of getting money from an ATM: Suppose you have a minute to consider the offer, then in that time the currency may drop or rise (which you can see from an external source of information). Therefore this opens a window for abuse. For real major currencies these huge switches are rare, but they do happen. And when 1 or 2 minor currencies are involved these switches are more common. Just looking at a random pair for today (Botswana Pula to Haitian Gourde) I immediately spotted a moment where the exchange rate jumped by more than 2 %. This may not be the best example, but it shows why a large margin is desirable. Note that this argument only holds for when the customer knows in advance what the exchange rate would be, for cases where it is calculated afterwards I have not found any valid excuse for such large margins (except that it allows them to offer other services at a lower price because these transaction).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa9b5d6f4a38386e5f16a6afcfabc9ce",
"text": "I meant bitcoin. The issuer is the designer of the currency, which I have stated multiple times, has structural issues. The exchanges are the banks, which have been shown to be susceptible to hacking. Bitcoin is also a fiat currency, just like every other currency, just one with no faith or guarantees behind it and no one to hold accountable when things go sideways. No thanks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f618ab19f17487dccfcaef9c71b6f43",
"text": "\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \"\"believe it is money\"\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b9e1b14c98aa0813d39fed38251fb95",
"text": "\"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \"\"how do I pick stocks?\"\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c9c70c7d21ebcee8b2b72b53b86320c6
|
Is there a financial product that allows speculation on GDP?
|
[
{
"docid": "3048fcd106371966f419a784a95ddf8e",
"text": "The closest thing that you are looking for would be FOREX exchanges. Currency value is affected by the relative growth of economies among other things, and the arbritrage of currencies would enable you to speculate on the relative growth of an individual economy.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "efd0097229164057ef16b3e11f442cf7",
"text": "The closest I can think of from the back of my head is http://finviz.com/map.ashx, which display a nice map and allows for different intervals. It has different scopes (S&P500, ETFs, World), but does not allow for specific date ranges, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e34cc3a908ca41889fbf8177fb23690b",
"text": "> “The economy, as measured by gross domestic product, can be expected to grow at an annual rate of about 3 percent over the long term, and inflation of 2 percent would push nominal GDP growth to 5 percent, Buffett said. Stocks will probably rise at about that rate and dividend payments will boost total returns to 6 percent to 7 percent, he said.” [Warren Buffett](https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simple-Dollar/2013/0506/What-Warren-Buffett-s-stock-market-math-means-for-your-retirement) This isn't the whole picture, but it's a start.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b18a18b6528b4276d4c996910e6f497",
"text": "Dithering in the dark Quantifying the effect of political uncertainty on the global economy EUROPE teeters at the edge of an economic abyss, its fate in the hands of political leaders at odds over how to solve the continent’s twin debt and bank crises. America may be pushed over a “fiscal cliff” at the end of the year by political dysfunction. And even China, although unlikely to take a deep dive, is hostage to the will and ability of its government to stimulate growth. More than at any point in recent history, the global economy’s fate is tied to the capriciousness of policymakers. How much does such uncertainty cost? Anecdotal evidence suggests that it costs a lot. Customers of Cisco Systems, the world’s biggest maker of internet gear, are taking longer to make decisions, according to John Chambers, the company’s boss. Their orders tend to be smaller than before, and to require more in-house approvals. They say they are planning to buy more stuff later this year, reported Mr Chambers recently, but “then in the very next breath they say it depends on what happens on a global and macro scale.”In Europe firms must reckon not only with recession but also with the risk that their investments may be redenominated in a different currency or locked in by capital controls. Robert Bergqvist of SEB, a Swedish bank, says that several Swedish corporate customers have put investment projects on hold because they don’t know how the euro crisis will unfold. If America falls over the “fiscal cliff”, it would suffer a fiscal squeeze of 5% of GDP, easily enough to push the economy into recession. Last summer, as America’s government came perilously close to exhausting its legal authority to borrow, Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress could not resolve their fiscal differences. Instead, they kicked the can down the road, agreeing on huge automatic spending cuts that would start on January 2nd, just as all of George Bush’s tax cuts are due to expire, along with a separate temporary payroll tax cut. No deal to avoid this double whammy is likely before the November 6th election. So any firm that sells to the federal government is left in limbo. Mike Lawrie, head of Computer Sciences Corporation, a big technology-services firm, recently told investors: “I just don’t know what’s going to happen...None of us [knows].” The debt-ceiling showdown makes last summer’s weak economy weaker, said James Tisch, the boss of Loews Corporation, a conglomerate, last month. And “this fiscal cliff is the summer of ’11 but on steroids.” Economists have long suspected that uncertainty could hurt growth. John Maynard Keynes said investment was based on expectations that are “subject to sudden and violent changes”. In a 1980 paper Ben Bernanke, now chairman of the Federal Reserve, formalised this effect: since most investment is irreversible, uncertainty “increases the value of waiting for new information [and thus] retards the current rate of investment.” In the 1990s Avinash Dixit and Robert Pindyck went further, making an analogy between an investment opportunity and a stock option, the value of which rises with the volatility of the stock price but disappears once the option is exercised. If an investment is irreversible, uncertainty raises the value of hoarding cash and waiting to see what happens. Gauging the fog Quantifying uncertainty is a more recent sport. To measure it, Nick Bloom and Scott Baker of Stanford University and Steve Davis of the University of Chicago constructed an index. It counts how often uncertainty related to policy is mentioned in newspapers, the number of temporary provisions in the tax code and the degree to which forecasts of inflation and federal spending differ from each other. That index hit its highest in 25 years during last summer’s debt-ceiling battle and remains high (by contrast, the Vix index of stock market volatility, a conventional gauge of uncertainty, remains below its peak of 2009; see chart). A simpler index for Europe that tracks news reports of uncertainty has similarly spiked. Mr Bloom and his co-authors fed their index into a model of growth that seeks to filter out purely economic factors by controlling for interest rates and stock prices. They conclude that the rise in uncertainty between 2006 and 2011 reduced real GDP by 3.2% and cost 2.3m jobs. Such estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. They demonstrate that policy uncertainty and weaker economic growth are related, not that the first causes the second. Many radical policy actions, from the TARP bail-out programme to the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing and the Dodd-Frank law on financial reform, were responses to unprecedented economic trauma: collapsing house prices, failing financial institutions and the deepest recession since the second world war. That trauma did most of the damage to growth, not any uncertainty about the policy response. Had policymakers stood still, the result would have been less policy uncertainty but a far more damaging crisis. Clearly some policies, such as Mr Obama’s health-care reform, generate uncertainty independent of economic developments. But at least Obamacare comes with benefits as well as risks; that cannot be said for the current political brinkmanship. As the fiscal cliff draws nearer, argues Ethan Harris, Bank of America’s economist for North America, the incentive to defer hiring and investment will grow, putting pressure on the economy. “The process is as important as the outcome,” he says, “and the process is a disaster.” http://www.economist.com/node/21556930 Thomas Oye",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "883cafa8f5663e43e4c96d54317ed88f",
"text": "Banks in certain countries are offering such facility. However I am not aware of any Bank in Hungary offering this. So apart from maintaining a higher amount in HUF, there by reducing the costs [and taking the volatility risks]; there aren't many options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8b8a8cd6dd609be92d7c068483a4d53",
"text": "Factset also provides a host of tools for analysis. Not many people know as they aren't as prevalent as Bloomberg. CapitalQ and Thomson Reuters also provide analysis tools. Most of the market data providers also provide analysis tools to analyze the data they and others provide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adaba88e23cded5660899924bfd1f056",
"text": "If anyone is interested in looking into it, the company Pinnacle has actually been using theory from quantitative finance for a long time. I went to one of their talks during useR!2017 in Brussels, really interesting betting company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59f54cbaa67b1798e28fbcb031da4510",
"text": "\"The term \"\"stock\"\" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument. Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons. Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c714df641d3c69e2e6d54221e81635ba",
"text": "Firstly, comparing debt to GDP is comparing a stock to a flow, you're committing a transgression that is warned about in Econ 101. Secondly, I appreciate your concern about the height of debt but it's really just a measure of the flow of capital. Debt is an investment too, and the headline debt number mixes government, corporate, and consumer debt which have very different attributes. In fact the holders of most government debt are normal citizens and pensioners. More concerning might be the levels of *consumer* debt, but (I would argue) that only becomes an issue if debt starts being issued fraudulently to people who shouldn't be receiving it, e.g. ahead of the mortgage crisis. There may be nothing I can say to convince you otherwise, and I'm not saying that overleveraging *isn't* something to be concerned about, but I'm trying to remind you that the story is more complicated than you're letting on. Finally, respectfully, please don't scaremonger about derivatives. The notional value is very high, but derivatives are a zero-sum market (unlike the stock market, e.g.), and in fact the majority of derivatives are for hedging and reducing risk. While it's certainly possible to use derivatives to leverage oneself, this really only happens with hedge fund-type operations, and even if the derivative market blew up I highly doubt it would affect average people very much. TL;DR, If there's another crash in the next 5 years, I doubt it will be due to debt (outside of *perhaps* China, but I think that'd lead to more of a recession than a full blown 2008-esque crisis). It definitely will not be because of derivatives.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1c6d980076a737e1d0939f6b32732f6",
"text": "I mean, sure. But that has nothing to do with gdp-ppp, mostly because I'm pretty sure you can't pay for spying with yuan. GDP-PPP is the metric people point when they *really* want the US to no longer geopolitically matter. In reality, China has got a long way to go before they get to the point of truly challenging the US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01a307c4236d58d3e0da1df77541e4a9",
"text": "I didn't take too many finance or economics courses so i can't comment. In my post I recommended the YouTube video or audiobook 'why an economy grows and why it doesn't' I guess it's more economy related than finance related, but is still relevant as it touches on loans and net worth and stuff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bee5a63f15bde0552214d71f7f7654fb",
"text": "If you are looking to analyze stocks and don't need the other features provided by Bloomberg and Reuters (e.g. derivatives and FX), you could also look at WorldCap, which is a mobile solution to analyze global stocks, at FactSet and S&P CapitalIQ. Please note that I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f988fc7610be7ccd2e8685e75ebb6fe5",
"text": "Assuming S&P value as % of GDP doesn't change, to get S&P return you add (Nominal GDP % growth + Dividend Yield) -> S&P return. Historically the S&P has grown faster as corporations of won market share and therefore grown to a larger portion of GDP. While this can continue (or possibly reverse), and can happen globally as well, you are correct in pointing out that it cannot continue ad infinitum.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62c2505b9c73061efe7702f188ad3fbd",
"text": "It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given. A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e6f5a82008f9330d2061b78d7cbadd5",
"text": "I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd16f3323c1ff492af0518c89d5e8601",
"text": "Using GDP as a proxy for economic well-being was ok, though not great, when GDP growth seemed to be linked with other measures like average salary, purchasing power, national debt and employment. I had really hoped that the split in these different measures during and since the recession would mean that people started to look for more nuanced reporting of the stats but sadly it seems that now GDP is on the up and employment is back below 7% everything is fine in the world of newspaper publishing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dff1b8cbb6012a2ecbb570f1114697e8
|
Why can't the Fed lower interest rates below zero?
|
[
{
"docid": "8581237521e013efb99dba1ca0c48598",
"text": "Because giving someone a loan and paying them to take it isn't a loan anymore. I'll grant you, some of the treasury bill auctions did slip below 0% -- people paid in slightly more than what the bill would pay out. In as much as this was done by actual investors (and not afore-mentioned helicopter Ben Bernanke keeping the printing presses running hot all night), it was major accounts fearful of the euro disintegrating and banks crashing, and so on, and needing a safe spot to stick their cash for a couple months. Where the Fed is concerned, that interest rate he's referring to is lending they do to banks. So, how much would you take if you ran a bank and the Fed offered to pay you to take their money? A billion? A trillion? As much as you could cram in your vaults, shove in your pockets, and stuff down your favorite teller's blouse? Yea, me too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28187df0941807dfabb9cb1a848d3531",
"text": "\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25294ecedfdae6c44ced49fb23f14779",
"text": "\"If the Federal Reserve were to pay banks to hold money, they would need to get the money from somewhere to do so. They would have three options: Go to Congress, and request and authorization of funds. As an quasi-independent entity, however, it would be both highly unorthodox for an institution to diminish its own authority by requesting funding, and politically difficult for the Congress to appropriate it. Transfer held-assets After QE & QE2, the Fed is now the holder of several assets (mortgages and the like) that are already unorthodox for it to hold. It acquired these assets in the first place to soak up excess demand. If these assets were transferred back to banks, it would have exactly the opposite effect - increasing supply and further suppressing the value of the assets they would be trying to shore up by lowering the interest rate. \"\"Print money\"\" The fed could raise the money supply by issuing new bonds. This is inherently inflationary, and while pretty much everyone agrees this isn't bad in the short run, there is already widespread fear that in the long run, QE by itself is going to unleash massive inflation once growth returns anyway. To keep \"\"pushing on this string\"\" would only excerabate these fears, and quite likely turn it into a self-fufilling prophecy. In short, the Fed \"\"could\"\" pay banks to hold money, but the political and economic consequences of raising the needed funds to do so would all undermine the institution or the desired effect.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afcfaa3930781982e106f63f9e89ae04",
"text": "Why can't the Fed simply bid more than the bond's maturity value to lower interest rates below zero? The FED could do this but then it would have to buy all the bonds in the market since all other market participants would not be willing to lend money to the government only to receive less money back in the future. Not everyone has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars :)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7573e4ed4182d7fe0dec027f67145669",
"text": "\"Wiki's not entirely accurate. My conspiracy theorist answer is because the Fed is not a government entity, it gives them increased flexibility with decreased transparency and the ability to do what is necessary to keep the currency/economy afloat under the fiat money system. A good book I found on this is Ron Paul's \"\"End the Fed\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "629a1e69f2804a85212260c726c6c200",
"text": "This is a good point. The problem is that we still use the central bank and interest rates to try to control the economy. This is the part that has failed. I would suggest adjusting government spending based on the economic situation (down in good times, up in bad times). I do believe this would prevent recessions but it has never been tried. only in desperate times like the japanese recession and our great depression does this get tried and in both times has been effective. This is the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aacc8dd785b7393fa395266b83fcde03",
"text": "I agree. Since the Fed has been pursing all kinds of aggressive policies for years it saying things have gotten worse damages their reputation. This means it's either so clear it can't be ignored or is the first step in some other strong measures (leaving QE in place?). Either way, the fact the Fed is saying this is significant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cba82135c4def9b57bde82806051cac8",
"text": "Next year, the Fed plans on unwinding the Bonds and MBS. They'll ramp up to $50 billion a month. At the same time we'll be selling Bonds on the market to finance the debt at a rate of $70 billion a month. I wonder who's going to have the cash to buy the Toxic MBS and the low yield Bonds they'll be unloading on top of the usual Bonds for future debt. Those Bonds will have to pay double digit rates before anyone will buy them. Future generations will just get even more screwed the way the Fed has it planned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f76bbd6a16d8ffce02efdb14a4d6b3a4",
"text": "If such an investment existed, then why would the banks be parking their overnight funds with the Federal Reserve at an interest rate of pretty much nothing?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98098c944f7f21877eeeea7dfc8c7610",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-26/what-you-should-know-about-r) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > As the Federal Reserve gradually normalizes its monetary policy, market participants will hear a lot more about r*, the &quot;Neutral rate of interest,&quot; which helps equilibrate financial markets when the economy is growing at potential and inflation remains contained and stable. > A gradual convergence of the policy rate to that level would allow, to adapt the phrase of Bridgewater Associates&#039; Ray Dalio, a &quot;Beautiful normalization&quot; of monetary policies that is consistent with market stability and soundness. > While the r* concept is more relevant for advanced countries with mature financial systems, many emerging economies cannot avoid the consequences of related policy shortfalls even though these would be well beyond their borders. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6k3ex6/what_you_should_know_about_r/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~154803 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **financial**^#1 **policy**^#2 **market**^#3 **rate**^#4 **interest**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08ae45c25bb27e5167d571d0f6f23ba3",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/business/dealbook/libor-fca-banks-andrew-bailey.html) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The one-year Libor, which represents the rate of interest on a loan between banks to be paid back within a year, is the most commonly used index for mortgages in the United States, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. > &quot;And while we have given our full support to encouraging panel banks to continue to contribute and maintaining Libor over recent years, we do not think markets can rely on Libor continuing to be available indefinitely.\"\" > Mr. Bailey said that the regulator had agreed with the panel banks to sustain Libor through 2021 to smooth a transition to new rates. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6r14fz/libor_brought_scandal_greatest_financial_scandal/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~180937 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Libor**^#1 **rate**^#2 **bank**^#3 **over**^#4 **Financial**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91c691f7277145c079dcdfed47e71aba",
"text": "Your thinking is a little extreme! V could go under... but chances are very remote. Similarly I can't answer if someone asks if the Feds can go under. Looking at our awesome debt levels and no way to dig out of it, that is definitely a possibility. But will it happen? Probably no.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4091a8bdaae487c454b2b0066b7b8a36",
"text": "I disagree with his point about taking too long to tighten. With rates near zero and asset purchasing programs in place, if there were another crisis what tools does the FRB have? Establishing a broad clear path forward is the best course of action so that confidence is restored in the marketplace. Unfortunately things have moved very far very fast and it has increased inequality. If we tightened sooner and a crisis were to occur the FRB (and the US by proxy) would have been hamstrung for a decades; it took us 1 decade on the current path.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd93fb09596bdc0a25f25d6c4d426b78",
"text": "First of all, that link is nonsense. I recommend you read the actual GAO audit report, which has 16T in *revolving loans* with only (if I recall) about 1.8T in actual loans at any one time. Secondly, every time I check the details of a claim from Bernie Sanders he has stretched the truth far beyond reasonable, mostly to keep his name in the news I expect. Now, there was nothing that secret about *anything* in that report that was not reported in GAO reports from earlier. This audit was done for political purposes mostly, and the Fed has audits done regularly, as I stated earlier. This too can be checked, and I recommened you do so rather than believe me or that story. That incident, as you call it, is already exceeding rare. You have to weigh the pros/cons of that incident (which as I pointed out is not really an incident) with the problems that arise when you make more transparent and governmental control of the Fed. If the Fed has a role in stabilizing the economy (which is it's mandate) and if many of the tools do not work as well with more transparency and if there is evidence across many countries that doing such things to the Fed will likely result in certain problems, then one should make that call. However, to want those changes made while being ignorant of the issues is a terrible idea, and it is the least informed that usually yell the loudest for such changes. This would not be a problem except then certain politicians realize they can get votes by pandering to the ignorant masses, which really leads to tanked economies. Find how many economies have been tanked by an independent central banks versus how many have been tanked by political forces meddling with their respective economies. Finally, I highly recommend anytime you read a story that sounds outrageous, track down the source material and read it yourself. If you cannot find source material, or they do not list it, then distrust them. You'll find 99/100 times the outrageousness is created by selectively pulling information from the actual reports. Then track down report sources, wherever possible. Etc. Seriously, read the actual report.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf3a242bd5867bd1ea8d2adf71e360c9",
"text": "It's called carry-trade. They can borrow from governments that have 0% int rates, exchange it for dollars, and then buy u.s. treasuries. Japan would never ever raise their interest rates as their economy runs on keynesian fumes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "318d8f36eb6e2ab8c6c7ecbd948c3e6f",
"text": "One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e383f03888247ea2380a334c0f3734c",
"text": "\"Haha now there's two of you. I have two twits parrot squawking in my ears in stereo. Okay, so maybe you aren't from the US, in which case I can forgive your confusion and completely circular logic. You must have gone back to Wikipedia or something, because the IS and LM curves are not, in your words, operating without \"\"control by powerful offices in government.\"\" The IS and LM curve indeed cross at a level that is consistent with an equilibrium between income and expenditure's equilibirium with the money market. But that's just the label slapped on it, it's not determinative as some sort of naturally occurring law of economics in our society. No, these things don't just happen on their own. If what you're inartfully implying were true, then there would be no such thing as an expansionary or contractionary monetary policy. Manipulating and controlling the money supply is the entire reason for the existence of the Federal Reserve! What is wrong with you? Go read a book or something on it, fuck me. The Federal Reserve, by setting interest rates mainly, and by open market operations, and by less frequently changing the reserve requirements which directly controls the MONEY MULTIPLIER (you know, that thing that creates money out of thin air you seem to not be able to understand exists?) is constantly changing AGGREGATE DEMAND in the economy. Aggregate demand is what the ISLM curve is about. It's about the equilibrium between price levels and the level of economic OUTPUT DEMANDED. But not supplied. That's aggregate supply, and the Federal Reserve effects that less. But yes, you've simply expanded the scope of things I could talk about that are fucked up about banks and the Fed in particular, because the Federal Reserve, in manipulating aggregate demand for money, actually is destroying money and the efficient use of money at the same time, because the LM curve in particular really represents the relationship between REAL income and the REAL money supply. Real means not nominal, but in actual purchasing terms. The Fed is manipulating an LM curve that at its base is a piece of logic built on the assumption that what's going into it are real numbers, and yet by definition, the Fed acting to manipulate it makes those numbers not determined by purely market forces, but also by the Fed. That makes them less than real. Basically the Federal Reserve pumps up artificial levels of demand in the economy, which lasts for a bit to generate growth numbers, but in the long term it simply results in inflation and a continually delayed (at least for now) reckoning where the artificial demand (i.e. the government's ability to borrow) cannot be further expanded, and something has to give. This down the road would be a monetary crisis involving the US dollar being knocked off its perch as the world's primary reserve currency, and the yields on Treasuries skyrocketing to the point that the government is either forced to behave or else print so much money to actually cover interest payments on the debt that the flood of money into the economy causes catastrophic inflation. But anyway, my point is that you're making a circular argument, because you're saying that the Fed doesn't interfere in or exert tremendous control over the economy, because there's something that we know shows the given price level of money in an economy called the ISLM curve, falsely implying that everything's fine with money because it's determined by mechanical, natural laws, almost like gravity, when in fact the Federal Reserve's whole purpose is to manipulate the inputs that go into that curve. It reduces interest rates which artificially increases income. It also increases the velocity of money, an input for the LM curve, by increasing nominal economic output, etc. etc. The IS and LM curves are not these things that just sort of happen on their own. This may come as a shock, but the US has a central bank which has as its sole purpose the manipulation of these curves. Its central mandate is control of price levels. Its unspoken mandate is to preserve the status of the big banks on the top of society, which is why the big banks created it in the first place, and why they own all the branches (this is the root fact behind why some people say that the Federal Reserve is in fact not federal and is instead privately owned, which isn't completely literally true, but true enough in the sense that it has a clear conflict of interest between the public good it's supposed to be upholding and the private interests of the banks that own its branches and exert control over the financial system, mainly through the New York branch). But that's not the whole story about the total money supply. There's also the pyramiding effect of the money multiplier. It's as if you're just pretending these things don't exist. It's real, I assure you. Banks create money out of thin air when they extend credit to you. To pay the obligation to them, you use the real money you in fact earned through your own labor, or from some real asset you might have. They get the better end of the deal, and almost all the money in the economy is spawned by this process, this insanely exorbitant privilege they have. And yes, I have a problem with it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "735cdacb94f03923d7db3c732b06db0f",
"text": "\"These rates are so low because the cost of money is so low. Specifically, two rates are near zero. The Federal Reserve discount rate, which is \"\"the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window.\"\" The effective federal funds rate, which is the rate banks pay when they trade balances with each other through the Federal Reserve. Banks want to profit on the loans they make, like mortgage loans. To do so, they try to maximize the difference between the rates they charge on mortgages and other loans (revenue), and the rates they pay savings account holders, the Federal Reserve or other banks to obtain funds (expenses). This means that the rates they offer to pay are as close to these rates as possible. As the charts shows, both rates have been cut significantly since the start of the recession, either through open market operations (the federal funds rate) or directly (the discount rate). The discount rate is set directly by the regional Federal Reserve banks every 14 days. In most cases, the federal funds rate is lower than the discount rate, in order to encourage banks to lend money to each other instead of borrowing it from the Fed. In the past, however, there have been rare instances where the federal funds rate has exceeded the discount rate, and it's been cheaper for banks to borrow money directly from the Fed than from each other.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e400ac547517161dca92438aa601eba3",
"text": "\"Thanks for the quick reply. I'd like to point out the post that triggered me to make this request in public is - Reddit post: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/naboa/fears_persist_that_the_us_labor_market_cannot_be/ Specific response: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/naboa/fears_persist_that_the_us_labor_market_cannot_be/c37kj2t The sidebar says that political debate is not permitted in this forum, and until recently I would say this request had been adhered to. But this particular FT article, like others, can be dissected politically, and therefore shouldn't be in r/finance. It belongs in r/economics. Unfortunately, any posts that relate to current macroeconomic circumstances, especially central banking and global unemployment, will invite the Ron-Paulites and they really don't add any sort of value to r/finance, and they do politicize the forum and debate. I don't think ZeroHedge _ever_ has a place in this forum. The source is not credible and always has too much of a political angle to be in a forum that has declared itself as \"\"not a place for politics.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cdfba79258de756c8f6deeacd21102ea
|
Why does it matter if a Central Bank has a negative rather than 0% interest rate?
|
[
{
"docid": "d43a765c37b5c6be67a1a8905054dabd",
"text": "That is kind of the point, one of the hopes is that it incentivizes banks to stop storing money and start injecting it into the economy themselves. Compared to the European Central Bank investing directly into the economy the way the US central bank has been doing. (The Federal Reserve buying mortgage backed securities) On a country level, individual European countries have tried this before in recent times with no noticeable effect.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1cf9c7613a8b1d0fd44de8be4f8b61b0",
"text": "Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27f2ea3f06194bf4fdbfa53f7af8e376",
"text": "It's the rate of return on new opportunities. The rate on existing projects isn't relevant. If you buy a bond 10 years ago when market Interest rates were 8%, and you have cash to buy another bond today, it is today's interest rates that are relevant, not the rates 10 years ago.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a81fcec8b06a16d323ca49071561d6e7",
"text": "My first thought was that it must be due to inflation, which causes such differences in many cases since a creditor needs to make back more than the rate of inflation in order not to effectively lose money. But it seems that Paraguay currently has only a very modest rate of inflation, about 3%. Other possible reasons for different credit rates: The latter is most likely. It means that if debtors are generally poor and are often completely unable to pay back the loan, or if there is no effective way to force uncooperative debtors to pay (e.g. when there are weak laws or overworked courts), then creditors will lose a lot of money to defaults and have to raise rates to compensate for this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34665581461e0a8d5d33457ae25d7895",
"text": "The question in my view is going into Opinion and economics. Why would I buy a bond with a negative yield? I guess you have answered yourself; Although the second point is more relevant for high net worth individual or large financial institutions / Governments where preserving cash is an important consideration. Currently quite a few Govt Bonds are in negative as most Govt want to encourage spending in an effort to revive economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48c01e8025f37a2255ffd3c048d8b06a",
"text": "Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400 million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100 million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a 15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48f0b8daf92c94325fe3993451500c40",
"text": "The United States Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates should be low. (They think it may help the economy. The details matter little here though.) It will enforce this low rate by buying Treasury bonds at this very low interest rate. (Bonds are future money, so this means they pay a lot of money up front, for very little interest in the future. The Fed will pay more than anyone who offers less money up front, so they can set the price as long as they're willing to buy.) At the end of the day, Treasury bonds pay nearly no interest. Since there's little money to be made with Treasuries, people who want better-than-zero returns will bid up the current-price of any other bonds or similar loan-like instruments to get what whatever rate of return that they can. There's really no more than one price for money; you can think of the price of those bonds as basically (Treasury rate + some modifier based on the risk) percent. I realize thinking about bond prices is weird and different than other prices (you're measuring future-money using present-money and it's easy to be confused) and assure you it ultimately makes sense :) Anyway. Your savings account money has to compete with everyone else willing to lend money to banks. Everyone-else lends money for peanuts, so you get peanuts on your savings account too. Your banking is probably worth more to your bank on account of your check-card payment processing fees (collected from the merchant) than from the money they make lending out your savings (notice how many places have promotional rates if you make your direct deposits or use your check card to make a purchase N times a month). In Europe, it's similar, except you've got a different central bank. If Europe's bank operated radically differently for an extended period of time, you'd expect to see a difference in the exchange rates which would ultimately make the returns from investing in those currencies pretty similar as well. Such a change may show up domestically as inflation in the country with the loose-money policy, and internationally as weakness against other currencies. There's really only one price for money around the entire world. Any difference boils down to a difference in (perceived) risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ffea0fcea377ecbb6358b9406c20f42",
"text": "\"Yet another \"\"If X, then EUROFAIL!!\"\" It's really fucking tedious even without the screamingly, mind-numbingly wrong \"\"logic\"\" of this one. If you're lending money to Germany at 0% and still expect to make a profit, it's because the Euro *will be HIGHER* than your currency at the end of the loan period. This one doesn't look like stupidity so much as a really ham-fisted manipulation attempt to engineer a short-term euro drop for a nicer buy-in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a66ffd467cfa8743dc1cf6724f238af",
"text": "You understand that the Fed is *supposed* to make overnight loans to banks, that one of its primary jobs is to be a lender of last resort? And yes, some were foreign banks; foreign subsidies of US banks or counter-parties to large US banks. Near-zero, yes for course we're talking about *overnight* loans. The current commercial rate for overnight euro LIBOR is 0.26179%, in other words, 0.0026, near zero OMG conspiracy!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1c8eb4c1f7b0575154056ff28ed2dd9",
"text": "\"Long answer: [Interest Rates and Fiscal Sustainability](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722986) Short(er) answer: The issuer of the currency isn't revenue-constrained in its own currency. So the \"\"debt situation\"\" isn't bad at all, it's just a record of net issuance. On interest payments, two considerations. First is that when the interest rate is less than the growth rate, debt:GDP levels off. Second is that the interest rate is a price set by the issuer. So interest payments aren't a problem either. Does that mean the government can just spend without limit or consequence? No. A thousand times, no. What it does mean though is that those limits and consequences are properly described in terms of what the economy needs and not in terms of budget constraints. Or to put it another way, they're balancing an economy, not a budget.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23b6f3349410a9cd46532acb781c86ea",
"text": "The point of what you heard is likely that gold is thought by some to hold its value well, when the money market would provide negative interest rates. These negative interest rates are a sign of deflation, where cash money is worth more in the future than it is today. Normally, under inflation, cash money is worth less in the future than it is today. Under 'normal' circumstances where inflation exists, interest paid by the bank on money held there generally keeps up with inflation + a little bit extra. Now, we are seeing many banks offering interest rates in the negatives, which is an acknowledgement of the fact that money will be worth more in the future than it is today. So in that sense, holding physical gold 'fights' deflation [or, negative interest rates], in the same way that holding physical cash does [because if you hold onto a $10k bundle of bills, in 10 years you can walk into a bank and it will be worth $10k in future dollars - which in a deflationary market would be more than it is worth today]. Some view gold as being better at doing this than just holding cash, but that discussion gets into an analysis of the value of paper money as a currency, which is outside the scope of this answer. Suffice to say, I do not personally like the idea of buying gold as an investment, but some do, and partly for this reason.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7f27dfffa398fe03986c118eb595efc",
"text": "The Fed controls the base interest rate for lending to banks. It raises this rate when the economy is doing well to limit inflation, and lowers this rate when the economy is doing poorly to encourage lending. Raising the interest rate signals that the Fed believes the economy is strong/strengthening. Obviously it's more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db60352c2a3f024fb17f6eb2c3c446e8",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/private-bankers_patience-wearing-thin-for-negative-interest-rates/43174886) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Negative interest rates are the bane of the financial sector - and the longer they remain, the louder bankers cry foul. > He noted that &quot;The voices criticising negative interest rates have become louder and more numerous. We no longer feel alone.&quot; He added that he hoped future conditions might allow &quot;Our central bank to loosen its stranglehold&quot; on interest rates. > The Private Banking Day organisers even invited along German economist Hans-Werner Sinn to help them ram home the point that negative interest rates are bad. Sinn warned that the countries most likely to suffer from such monetary policy are those where house prices have risen rapidly in recent years - Switzerland, Germany and Austria. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejahv/patience_wearing_thin_for_negative_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133488 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **interest**^#2 **rate**^#3 **Swiss**^#4 **Negative**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aefe743b20c09ba211183e7b92a884ed",
"text": "Increasing rates from .75% to 1% is an attempt to control debt. The new 1% rate drives down demand for bonds based on the old .75% rate and drives down demand for stocks who have decrease profit because they pay more interest on debt. This is the federal reserves primary tool controling inflation. 1% is what the banks pay to borrow money, they base their lending rates on this 1% figure. If a person can guarantee a .75% return on money borrowed at 1%, they will opt to save and instead lend their money out at 1%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "174d0dde5a33952ccf7e1b619bfc6b38",
"text": "When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa68f3257bac3f78679bdf8b096022c3",
"text": "The Central Banks sets various rate for lending to Banks and Paying interest to Banks on excess funds. Apart from these the Central Banks also sets various other ratios that either create more liquidity or remove liquidity from Market. The CPI is just one input to the Central Bank to determine rate, is not the only deciding criteria. The CPI does not take into account the house price or the cost of renting in the basket of goods. One of the reasons could be that CPI contains basic essentials and also the fact that it should be easily mesurable over the period of time. For example Retail Price of a particular item is easily mesurable. The rent is not easily mesurable.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d4d0e5282c650ae01d56e15fcd6b8fbb
|
Is it sensible to keep savings in a foreign currency?
|
[
{
"docid": "c22ddc6666d604975f4b2b01bdbd3979",
"text": "Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup, would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? Probably not. Primarily because you don't know what will happen in the fallout of these sorts of political shifts. You don't know what will happen to banking treaties between the various countries involved. If you can manage to place funds on deposit in a foreign bank/country in a currency other than your home currency and maintain the deposit insurance in that country and not spend too much exchanging your currency then there probably isn't a downside other than liquidity loss. If you're thinking I'll just wire some whatever currency to some bank in some foreign country in which you have no residency or citizenship consideration without considering deposit insurance just so you might protect some of your money from a possible future event I think you should stay away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5e0d911af62091f18a6573283d3b230",
"text": "would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? This is primarily opinion based. Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup There is no way to predict what will happen in such large events. For example if one keeps funds outside on UK in say Germany in Euro's. The UK may bring in a regulation and clamp down all funds held outside of UK as belonging to Government or tax these at 90% or anything absurd that negates the purpose of keeping funds outside. There are example of developing / under developed economics putting absurd capital controls. Whether UK will do or not is a speculation. If you are going to spend your live in a country, it is best to invest in country. As normal diversification, you can look at keep a small amount invested outside of country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bce16a459992b5cfe97275296a8ea3e4",
"text": "I don't think that it's a good idea to have cash savings in different currencies, unless you know which will be the direction of the wind for that currency. You can suffer a lot of volatility and losses if you just convert your savings to another currency without knowing anything about which direction that pair will take. Today we can see Brexit, but this is a fact that has been discounted by the market, so the currencies are already adjusted to that fact, but we don't know what will happen in the future, maybe Trump will collapse the US economy, or some other economies in Asia will raise to gain more leadership. If you want to invest in an economy, I think that it's a best idea to invest on companies that are working in that country. This is a way of moving your money to other currencies, and at least you can see how is the company performing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5be96ed7dcb380a9559e44f5d69c2bf",
"text": "Is it sensible to keep savings in a foreign currency? The answer varies from one country to the next, but in the UK (or any other mature economy), I would advise against it. There are better ways to hedge against currency risks with the funds readily available to you through your ISA. You can keep your money relatively safe and liquid without ever paying a currency exchange fee.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "233fefaa0be88b6404682ad147c28974",
"text": "If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc6e266b59ecc292bde5266b4226db53",
"text": "\"The solution I've come up with is to keep income in CAD, and Accounts Receivable in USD. Every time I post an invoice it prompts for the exchange rate. I don't know if this is \"\"correct\"\" but it seems to be preserving all of the information about the transactions and it makes sense to me. I'm a programmer, not an accountant though so I'd still appreciate an answer from someone more familiar with this topic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec199cf207762c464059adad4d27fd60",
"text": "Withdraw your savings as cash and stuff them into your mattress? Less flippantly, would the fees for a safe deposit box at a bank big enough to hold CHF 250'000 be less than the negative interest rate that you'd be penalized with if you kept your money in a normal account?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df91c47eafc6397732ede7d8f2fe2602",
"text": "\"You are mixing issues here. And it's tough for members to answer without more detail, the current mortgage rate in your country, for one. It's also interesting to parse out your question. \"\"I wish to safely invest money. Should I invest in real estate.\"\" But then the text offers that it's not an investment, it's a home to live in. This is where the trouble is. And it effectively creates 2 questions to address. The real question - Buy vs Rent. I know you mentioned Euros. Fortunately, mortgages aren't going to be too different, lower/higher, and tax consequence, but all can be adjusted. The New York Times offered a beautiful infographing calculator Is It Better to Rent or Buy? For those not interested in viewing it, they run the math, and the simple punchline is this - The home/rent ratio can have an incredibly wide range. I've read real estate blogs that say the rent should be 2% of the home value. That's a 4 to 1 home/rent (per year). A neighbor rented his higher end home, and the ratio was over 25 to 1. i.e. the rent for the year was about 4% the value of the home. It's this range that makes the choice less than obvious. The second part of your question is how to stay safely invested if you fear your own currency will collapse. That quickly morphs into too speculative a question. Some will quickly say \"\"gold\"\" and others would point out that a stockpile of weapons, ammo, and food would be the best choice to survive that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6eb756cc10517e78138928fe576fa8",
"text": "\"Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means \"\"irregular deposit.\"\" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (\"\"give my money to a friend for safekeeping\"\") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (\"\"how can I keep my money safe\"\"). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is \"\"contract\"\". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for \"\"safekeeping,\"\" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss. Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily \"\"safe\"\" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the \"\"irregular\"\" part of the concept of \"\"irregular deposit\"\" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for \"\"safekeeping\"\" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and \"\"withdraw\"\" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier. And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides \"\"what you meant the money to be.\"\" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f321b5f5dcf5df983195cc9e9609e344",
"text": "Firstly, I think you need to separate your question into two parts: If you are Chinese, live in China and intend to stay in China for most of your life then the default answer to question 1 should be Renminbi. Question 2 is not as important, you can hold USD in almost any country in the world. Any investment you hold has risk, which may include market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, inflation risk etc. Holding USD will expose you to exchange rate fluctuations as well. If the Renminbi rises in value against the dollar your returns in USD will be reduced by the same amount (remember that for currency fluctuations you have to multiply the percentages, see here for a good explanation). The first thing you probably want to do is find out exactly what the assets are in the 理财 you have invested in. The fact that there is a 'risk level' (even if it is only 2) would suggest to me that the fund is investing in some combination of bonds and stocks which means that your returns are not guaranteed and could make a loss. Interest rates on deposit accounts are mandated by the government in China, and the current 12 month deposit rate on RMB is 3%. To earn over 3%, GEB must be investing your assets in something else (I'm guessing bonds). Bear in mind that 1.5 years is a very short amount of time in investments, so don't assume this return will continue! I'm afraid I've only been studying Chinese for a year, so I can't really help you much with the link you've sent through - you may want to check if there is any guaranteed minimum return, which can be the case in more complex structured products. Ultimately you will need to pick an investment which you feel gives you the best combination of risk and return for your situation, there are a huge amount of options to choose between. The 4-5% you are earning right now is not a huge risk premium on the 3% you could earn in China from a time deposit, but in the current environment you may struggle to beat it without taking on more risk. Before considering that though - understand how much risk you already have with GEB.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59b7de70d9d48f378b7a777c2b5420ae",
"text": "\"I would keep some money in the U.S. and some money in India. That way, in case \"\"something bad\"\" happens in one country, you will still have money in the other.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72b452624646db70ff1533aa27000710",
"text": "I haven't seen this answer, and I do not know the legality of it, as it could raise red flags as to money laundering, but about the only way to get around the exchange rate spreads and fees is to enter into transactions with a private acquaintance who has Euros and needs Dollars. The problem here is that you are taking on the settlement risk in the sense that you have to trust that they will deposit the euros into your French account when you deposit dollars into their US account. If you work this out with a relative or very close friend, then the risk should be minimal, however a more casual acquaintance may be more apt to walk away from the transaction and disappear with your Euros and your Dollars. Really the only other option would be to be compensated for services rendered in Euros, but that would have tax implications and the fees of an international tax attorney would probably outstrip any savings from Forex spreads and fees not paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81736205bbbb2bef19b6b96f71dcb2db",
"text": "\"You might convert all your money in local currency but you need take care of following tips while studying abroad.Here are some money tips that can be useful during a trip abroad. Know about fees :- When you use a debit card or credit card in a foreign country, there are generally two types of transaction fees that may apply: Understand exchange rates :- The exchange rate lets you know the amount of nearby money you can get for each U.S. dollar, missing any expenses. There are \"\"sell\"\" rates for individuals who are trading U.S. dollars for foreign currency, and, the other way around, \"\"purchase\"\" rates. It's a smart thought to recognize what the neighborhood money is worth in dollars so you can comprehend the estimation of your buys abroad. Sites like X-Rates offer a currency converter that gives the current exchange rate, so you can make speedy comparisons. You can utilize it to get a feel for how much certain amount (say $1, $10, $25, $50, $100) are worth in local currency. Remember that rates fluctuate, so you will be unable to suspect precisely the amount of a buy made in a foreign currency will cost you in U.S. dollars. To get cash, check for buddy banks abroad:- If you already have an account with a large bank or credit union in the U.S., you may have an advantage. Being a client of a big financial institution with a large ATM system may make it easier to find a subsidiary cash machine and stay away from an out-of-system charge. Bank of America, for example, is a part of the Global ATM Alliance, which lets clients of taking an interest banks use their debit cards to withdraw money at any Alliance ATM without paying the machine's operator an access fee, in spite of the fact that you may at present be charged for converting dollars into local currency used for purchases. Citibank is another well known bank for travelers because it has 45,000 ATMs in more than 30 countries, including popular study-abroad destinations such as the U.K., Italy and Spain. ATMs in a foreign country may allow withdrawals just from a financial records, and not from savings so make sure to keep an adequate checking balance. Also, ATM withdrawal limits will apply just as they do in the U.S., but the amount may vary based on the local currency and exchange rates. Weigh the benefits of other banks :- For general needs, online banks and even foreign banks can also be good options. With online banks, you don’t have to visit physical branches, and these institutions typically have lower fees. Use our checking account tool to find one that’s a good fit. Foreign banks:- Many American debit cards may not work in Europe, Asia and Latin America, especially those that don’t have an EMV chip that help prevent fraud. Or some cards may work at one ATM, but not another. One option for students who expect a more extended stay in a foreign country is to open a new account at a local bank. This will let you have better access to ATMs, and to make purchases more easily and without as many fees. See our chart below for the names of the largest banks in several countries. Guard against fraud and identity theft:- One of the most important things you can do as you plan your trip is to let your bank know that you’ll be abroad. Include exact countries and dates, when possible, to avoid having your card flagged for fraud. Unfortunately, incidents may still arise despite providing ample warning to your bank. Bring a backup credit card or debit card so you can still access some sort of money in case one is canceled. Passports are also critical — not just for traveling from place to place, but also as identification to open a bank account and for everyday purposes. You’ll want to make two photocopies and give one to a friend or family member to keep at home and put the other in a separate, secure location, just in case your actual passport is lost or stolen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e92a5e3cfe7db5a782b9931710ff389d",
"text": "\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaf385e8e4cec04116c0701d991180b7",
"text": "I think your approach of looking exclusively at USD deposits is a prudent one. Here are my responses to your questions. 1) It is highly unlikely that a USD deposit abroad be converted to local currency upon withdrawal. The reason for offering a deposit in a particular currency in the first place is that the bank wants to attract funds in this currency. 2) Interest rate is a function of various risks mostly supply and demand, central bank policy, perceived risk etc. In recent years low-interest rate policy as led by U.S., European and Japanese central banks has led particularly low yields in certain countries disregarding their level of risk, which can vary substantially (thus e.g. Eastern Europe has very low yields at the moment in spite of its perceived higher risk). Some countries offer depository insurance. 3) I would focus on banks which are among the largest in the country and boast good corporate governance i.e. their ownership is clean and transparent and they are true to their business purpose. Thus, ownership is key, then come financials. Country depository insurance, low external threat (low war risk) is also important. Most banks require a personal visit in order to open the account, thus I wouldn't split much further than 2-3 banks, assuming these are good quality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "041245ddb1f9ce5576e6d63afde087e8",
"text": "\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "332c7311f705acec1dd28a25e372bdce",
"text": "I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0c5d572daf63971196fc6cffc133484",
"text": "If your savings are in USD and will be making purchases using USD, then it will no longer go as far as it used to. I assume most Americans currently have their savings accounts in USD, so the value of those accounts will decrease. If you have investments in stocks or foreign currencies, your exposure may be less, but it depends. For example, stocks in companies that hold a lot of USD will also be hit hard, as will be currencies of nations that are still holding a lot of USD if the value of the USD is crashing. If you have a lot of debt measured in USD, while have a lot of assets that have nothing to do with USD, then you might make out like a bandit, since if you assume the value of the USD is falling, then it would become easier to sell off your other assets to pay off the debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13ee4ee6cbf862faced136bfe3156ba8",
"text": "\"Hi I'm the writer thanks for the read and the comment. With the statement you quoted, I'm trying to dispute the claim that \"\"people these days can't afford a house because they would have to pay their entire salary just to afford the mortgage,\"\" which I think is quite common in some circles. The data makes no statement as to whether home ownership is more affordable or not, but simply shows that those buying property are using around the same percentage of their income to pay for it, which the data clearly shows to be true. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N As it turns out, home ownership levels have remained within ~5% of their 1980 levels based on percentage of the total population. I think there is an major classification flaw when comparing only sales because a great deal of people inherit property with no sale ever being made.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
807829a46107690d8a1c1ced48962284
|
What expenses do most people not prepare for that turn into “emergencies” but are not covered by an Emergency Fund?
|
[
{
"docid": "0f07ea9fafa6a5e1b73d05b2c180926f",
"text": "Here's a few. Is this what you're looking for? Also this should probably be a community wiki.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbe2c6e26e76716c03bd47bd0569e344",
"text": "\"Some things are nearly universal, and have been mentioned already. My \"\"favorite\"\" forseeable expenses in this category are: However, I also advocate saving for expenses that are specific to you. Look back on your expenses for the last 12 months, minimum (18 or 24 may be better). Ask yourself these questions: I ask about large expenditures because you may make enough that you can \"\"eat\"\" these lapses in budgeting, as I did for many years. It is not an emergency now, but it turned into an emergency down the road as my spending went out of control. Look at all expenditures over a certain level, say $100 or $200. Some personal examples of expenses that aren't quite so universal, but turned into small emergencies: This last one was rather unexpected. It is the reason why I ask the question \"\"why didn't I budget for it?\"\" These fees and dues are for my professional-level certifications. In my industry, they are \"\"always\"\" paid for by the company. A year ago, they weren't paid by my former employer because they planned to lay me off. This year, they weren't paid by my present employer because I am technically a temporary worker (4 years is temporary?). So, from now on, I plan to save for this expense. If my employer pays my dues, then I stop saving for the expense, but keep the money I've saved.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7749ecf6124f78a622a98723b96f1a0b",
"text": "\"Annual property tax and home insurance come to mind as things that are easily forgotten, but surely the biggest true, \"\"I didn't see that coming,\"\" is a major car repair. There are a number of things that can go wrong with a car with little warning and end up costing a thousand dollars or more. Since most people are dependent upon their car for getting to work, doing anything but fixing or replacing the car is not an option. If you fix it, that's an out of pocket expense that most aren't prepared for. If the car has some age, you might be inclined to replace it, but doing so in a rush costs a lot more than taking your time in such a decision.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83634132effd6fa98942c23cc8c36e2d",
"text": "The way you ask this is interesting, it implies (quite correctly) that for many, an annual bill for house insurance, property tax, etc, can turn into an emergency. My answer to the true emergency is a breakage that can't be foreseen (although you have to know the furnace isn't going to last forever) or a medical bill that's not covered (our dental is limited and the Mrs root canal can be $1000 out of pocket)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c8a6c05c6d1e543cb0dedd72e683077",
"text": "insurance premiums My annual car premium always caught me off guard until I set up a dedicated savings account for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "078cc3cc8852b7a1d203547ef846b2d9",
"text": "Extended illness/disability that prevents you from being able to work. Edit: Leigh Riffel: So, why should this be expected, and how should it be planned for? Some of us may be fortunate enough that this never happens, but I've known enough unlucky people to have seen that it can and does happen. Prepare for it with:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e3180532398079ab7347abec6b8f857",
"text": "While it is true that homeowners insurance will cover emergencies, it is very important to check and make sure that your policy is covering everything that it needs to. A great example is what happened to all of those without flood insurance in Tennessee last year. You may opt not to get additional coverage, but then you should make sure that you are setting aside funds for such a catastrophe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d82c8a19d273ab96095497d48042869",
"text": "The most obvious one these days is unexpected and extended unemployment. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, you are asking for trouble in this economy.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cda8732e8212e65f3d20e97eca5a2eac",
"text": "First you should maintain a monthly expense and find out the burn rate. There would be certain expenses that are annual but mandatory [School fees, Insurance Premium, Property Taxes, etc]. So the ideal emergency fund depending on your industry should be 3 month to 6 months plus your mandatory yearly payments, more so if they come together. For example Most of my annual payments come out in May and I bank on the Bonus payout in April to cater to this spike in expense. So if I were to lose a job in March, my emergency funds would be sufficient for routine expenses, if i don't provision for additional funds Second you need to also figure out the reduced rate of monthly burn and ideally the emergency funds should be for 3 months of normal burn and 6 months of reduced burn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "552c97f6a717f65fe5560ea03fd90c76",
"text": "\"I think we'd need to look at actual numbers to see where you're running into trouble. I'm also a little confused by your use of the term \"\"unexpected expenses\"\". You seem to be using that to describe expenses that are quite regular, that occur every X months, and so are totally expected. But assuming this is just some clumsy wording ... Here's the thing: Start out by taking the amount of each expense, divided by the number of months between occurrences. This is the monthly cost of each expense. Add all these up. This is the amount that you should be setting aside every month for these expenses, once you get a \"\"base amount\"\" set up. So to take a simple example: Say you have to pay property taxes of $1200 twice a year. So that's $1200 every 6 months = $200 per month. Also say you have to pay a water bill once every 3 months that's typically $90. So $90 divided by 3 = $30. Assuming that was it, in the long term you'd need to put aside $230 per month to stay even. I say \"\"in the long term\"\" because when you're just starting, you need to put aside an amount sufficient that your balance won't fall below zero. The easiest way to do this is to just set up a chart where you start from zero and add (in this example) $230 each month, and then subtract the amount of the bills when they will hit. Do this for some reasonable time in the future, say one year. Find the biggest negative balance. If you can add this amount to get started, you'll be safe. If not, add this amount divided by the number of months from now until it occurs and make that a temporary addition to your deposits. Check if you now are safely always positive. If not, repeat the process for the next biggest negative. For example, let's say the property tax bills are April and October and the water bills are February, May, August, and November. Then your chart would look like this: The biggest negative is -370 in April. So you have to add $370 in the first 4 months, or $92.50 per month. Let's say $93. That would give: Now you stay at least barely above water for the whole year. You could extend the chart our further, but odds are the exact numbers will change next year and you'll have to recalculate anyway. The more irregular the expenses, the more you will build up just before the big expense hits. But that's the whole point of saving for these, right? If a $1200 bill is coming next week and you don't have close to $1200 saved up in the account, where is the money coming from? If you have enough spare cash that you can just take the $1200 out of what you would have spent on lunch tomorrow, then you don't need this sort of account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a2d0cb962219105b787335a74806013",
"text": "\"Discussions around expected values and risk premiums are very useful, but there's another thing to consider: cash flow. Some individuals have high value assets that are vital to them, such as transportation or housing. The cost of replacing these assets is prohibitive to them: their cashflow means that their rate of saving is too low to accrue a fund large enough to cover the asset's loss. However, their cashflow is such that they can afford insurance. While it may be true that, over time, they would be \"\"better off\"\" saving that money in an asset replacement fund, until that fund reaches a certain level, they are unprotected. Thus, it's not just about being risk averse; there are some very pragmatic reasons why individuals with low disposable income might elect to pay for insurance when they would be financially better off without it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07f8aff45a0dacdefd335463a736d6a4",
"text": "I agree. Those people should have saved up money before they bought that car to get to work, before they went to school to learn how to do that job. And they definitely shouldn't have gotten hurt and went to the hospital. These people living [beyond there means] are clearly spending money on things they shouldn't thought to buy. /s",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4cedf44f71c72962014b2cb1989d870",
"text": "This might vary from other answers but I generally prefer to use debt before touching an emergency fund. But one of the reasons I have an emergency fund is to that I can make sure I can cover any debt payments. Essentially, this give you leverage. You might start off with a small emergency such as needing a new refrigerator. If you pull the cash out of the fund to pay this off immediately, you've depleted your account and if something major comes along, you might be short. By using debt, you can often cover the costs with cash-flow and leave your risk buffer in place. Often, retailers will offer really sweet financing deals. 0% for 12 months or whatever. Often, though, if you don't pay it off in time, they can be costly. I'm not sure if this is legal (in the US) anymore but if it wasn't fully paid off in time, you'd be retroactively charged interest on the whole amount. But if you have an emergency fund, you pretty much guarantee that won't happen. The only time it will is if something else happens that requires the emergency fund to be cashed in. But if things are that dire, the debt is unsecured. You're credit may suffer but they can't come after your assets. It's not an either-or situation. You give yourself options by having the cash available. It allows you to take advantage of opportunities that might be too risky otherwise. Ultimately what you want to be able to weather the storm in a situation where you have, say, a mortgage on a house that is underwater, the stock market is down, and you have no income. In that situation, you don't want to liquidate your stock when it's down and you (probably) don't want to lose your home equity in a foreclosure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a3779a096b650123dcf697d0cb11ef3",
"text": "Yes, it should be. As, where one has insurance, its an expense one would expect one to continue to incur in a normal budgetary emergency, even drop in the extreme.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc9beba134af860f63df40315c9b5caa",
"text": "\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a555953991de6062f18e7d3f0931bd4d",
"text": "Regarding Medical insurance premiums - The premiums are only part of the cost. You need to know if you have a deductible, your out of pocket maximum and what co-pays you have. If you take medications on a daily basis you need to account for those costs. Some programs allow you to put money aside pre-tax to pay for these known expenses. I would split Emergency fund / general savings into two lines. You can set a goal to save X months worth of expenses as an emergency fund, but the general savings will be whatever is left over from the rest of your budget. Unless you have a goal for the savings: car, home...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe39f604ea42df974c6c353a8578884f",
"text": "I don't see why it would be any harder to sell stocks or bonds than it is to sell a CD you may have. Not to mention for large one time expenditures you can usually cover these with a credit card. This gives you about a month to move money around to pay your credit card off in a timely manner without incurring a charge. I have had no problem getting a credit limit beyond 4-5 months of expenses for myself on a single card. I can't even think of a household emergency that you can't pay for with a credit card. Job loss situations are not going to require large amounts of money immediately. True catastrophic emergencies (natural disasters, ransoms) however will need fast cash potentially. However in this case the only thing that is good is having cash on hand. As you can't count on ATMs or Bank systems to be functional. Even more serious emergencies such as zombies, the end of world, or anything that involves total economic collapse would require things that are not cash. You would need to invest in things like supplies, shelter, guns and maybe shiny metals that may have value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b3f1db667f6fef6484590e164986c9e",
"text": "\"I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest \"\"check cashing\"\", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear. Those who have not been within the system of poverty and desperation often do not see just how many people actively work to encourage bad decision making, with big budgets, charm, charisma, and talent. The voices of reason, trying to act as beacons to call people to take care of themselves and their future, are all too easily drowned out in the roar of a smooth and enticing operation. I personally think this is one of the greatest contributions of the movement to build personal financial health and awareness, as so many great people find ever more effective ways of pointing out the myriad ways people try to bleed your money out of you with no real concern for your welfare. Looking out for your own well-being and not being taking in by the wide array of cons and bad deals is all too often fighting against a strong societal current - as I'm sure most of our regular contributors are all too aware! With increasing desperation often comes illegal maneuvers, often quite petty in nature. Those with substance abuse issues often start reselling drugs to others to try to cover lost income or \"\"get ahead\"\", with often debilitating results on long-term earning potential if they get caught (which can include cost barriers to higher education, even if they do turn their life around). I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date). As noted above, if homelessness occurs and becomes longstanding before that, the result is generally shortened lifespan and premature death. The other major issue of health is that preventative care - from simple dentistry to basic self-care, adequate sleep and rest, a safe place to rejuvenate - is often sacrificed in the scrambling to survive and limited budget. Those who develop chronic conditions which need regular care are more severely affected. Diabetic and injury-related limb loss, as one example, are far more likely for those without regular support resources - homeless, destitute, or otherwise. Other posters have done a great job in pointing out a number of the lesser-known governmental programs, so I won't list them again. I only note the important proviso that this may be quite a bit less in total than you think. Social Security on average pays retired workers $1300 a month. It was designed to avoid an all-too-common occurrence of simple starvation, rampant homelessness, and abject poverty among a large number of elderly. No guarantee is made that you won't have to leave your home, move away from your friends and family if you live in an expensive part of the country, etc. Some people get a bit more, some people get quite a bit less. And the loss of family and friend networks - especially to such at-risk groups - can be incredibly damaging. Note also that those financially desperate will be generally pushed to take retirement at the minimum age, even though benefits would be larger and more livable if they delayed their retirement. This is an additional cost of not having other sources of savings, which is not considered by many. Well, yes, many cannot retire whether they want to or not. I cannot find statistics on this specifically, but many are indeed just unable to financially retire without considerable loss. Social Security and other government plans help avoid the most desperate scenarios, but so many aspects of aging is not covered by insurance or affordable on the limited income that aging can be a cruel and lonely process for those with no other financial means. Those with no savings are not likely to be able to afford to regularly visit children and grandchildren, give gifts on holidays, go on cruises, enjoy the best assistive care, or afford new technological devices to assist their aging (especially those too new and experimental to be covered by the insurance plans they have). What's worse - but most people do not plan for either - is that diminished mental and physical capacity can render many people unable to navigate the system successfully. As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others. Share your budgeting strategies, your plans for the future, your gentle concerns, and give of your time and resources as generously as you can - within your own set budgets and ensuring your own financial well-being. And most of all - do not so easily give up on your family and friends, and count them as life-long hopeless ne'er-do-wells. Let's all strive to be good, kind, honest, and offer non-judgmental support and advice to the best of our ability to the people we care about. It is ultimately their choice - restricted by their own experiences and abilities - but need not be fate. People regularly disappoint, but sometimes they surprise and delight. Take care of yourself, and give others the best chance you can, too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d6f0faf2adfc80f6b2f81af07236421",
"text": "The limits on an HSA are low enough that there's no real danger of overfunding it. The limits max out at (as of 2011, for an individual) at just over $3000 per year. Sometime in the next few years, you will have more than $3000 in health care expenses. It might be something like a car accident, acid reflux, a weird mole that the doctor wants to check out, a broken toe, a few nasty cavities that need to be filled, an expensive antibiotic, or something else entirely. Or, it might be something less dramatic, getting eaten away by copays and contact lenses. When that happens, you want the peace of mind that you can pay for your deductible plus any other expenses. Keep in mind that even a $5000 deductible can cost you more than $5000 out-of-pocket; either because of non-insured expenses, or simply an illness that straddles multiple calendar years. Besides, it's not like your HSA money is going anywhere; even if you never touch it, it's just a savings account that you can't touch until you turn 65. And if you do truly have an emergency, you can get at it if you have to. Even if your HSA is filled with several years' worth of deductibles, it's still a way to shield thousands of dollars a year from taxes, with luck moving them into lower-tax years 40 years from now. And it's a way that doesn't involve income limits or mandatory withdrawals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab01833e8f8774001c65b319b671cfb9",
"text": "Pre tax insurance is not possible unless the emplyer provides hsa and do a payroll deduction. Obamacare is all post tax and you can do deduction if your expenses exceeds 10%of your income",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c256cc471cf2a1929507906a781f412f",
"text": "\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have bank accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ab3e118c60058987f14696f65d3471e",
"text": "\"You don't mention what kind of insurance you're talking about, but I'll just address one angle on the question. For some kinds of insurance, such as health insurance (in the US), auto insurance, and homeowner's insurance, you may be insuring against an event that you would not be able to pay for without the insurance. For instance, if you are at fault in a car accident and injure someone, they could sue you for $100,000. A lot of people don't have $100,000. So it's not even a matter of \"\"I'll take the risk of having to pay it when the time comes\"\"; if the time comes, you could lose virtually everything you own and still have to pay more from future earnings. You're not just paying $X to offset a potential loss of $Y; you're paying $X to offset a potential derailment of your entire life. It is plausible that you could assign a reasonable monetary value to that potential \"\"cost\"\" that would mean you actually come out ahead in the insurance equation. It is with smaller expenses (such as insuring a new cellphone against breakage) that insurance becomes harder to justify. When the potential nonfinancial \"\"collateral damage\"\" of a bad event are less, you must justify the insurance expenses on the financial consequences only, which, as you say, is often difficult.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1433cfaddc0136852971c4afa4d49617",
"text": "I would suggest that you use Emergency Funds for things that have a Low likelihood of happening but if they do happen can be devastating. I used to work as a financial advisor and the sugfestion we gave people is to have about 3 months worth of expenses in cash. This was primarily to cover things luke loss of work or some unforseen even that would prevent you from missing work for an extended period of time. Once you have your emergency fund saved do not touch it! Leave it where it is. Then tou can start working on a savings account for those items that are more likely to happen but dont have as much of a negative impact.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.