query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
19edf69eefc43819fa14b8101accbac1
|
How Should I Go About Buying a Car? (College Student)
|
[
{
"docid": "509f6ff2ce216cbcf9f81b0460679e57",
"text": "So you want to buy a car but have no money saved up.... That's going to be hard!! I'd suggest you get a part-time job, save up and buy a used car. Even with the minimum wage pay in the U.S., if you are in the U.S., you could save up and buy a car in less than a month. This route would be the quickest way for you to get a car but it would also teach you the responsibility of having one since it appears you have never owned a car before. Now the car will most definitely not be fancy or look like the cars that your peer's parents bought but at least it will get you from point A to point B. I'd look on Craigslist or your local neighborhood for cars that have not moved in a while or have for sale signs. Bring a mechanically inclined friend with you and contact the owner and explain them your situation. There are nice people out there that would give you deep discounts based on the fact that you are a student trying to get by. Now you have to get registration and insurance. There are many insurance companies that give discounts to students as well who have good GPAs and driving records. If you happen to get a car for a good deal, take good car of it. Once you graduate and further your career, you can resell it for a profit. I also would not suggest you get any loans for a car given your situation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "15c15857ff5c581f243a3b1e99ffd3f1",
"text": "If you have no credit score it is generally far easier and more affordable to establish credit the cheapest way possible, which is usually in the form of a small credit card (student card if you are a student, low credit line unsecured, or even secured if you need). Your local bank/credit union will usually be keen to offer you something to start out, but you can also apply online to some of the major credit card vendors. As always, look out for annual fees, etc. In general, trying to get a larger loan to establish credit will cost you a lot as you will not qualify for any legitimate 0% or ultra-low APR car loans - those are reserved for people with established and generally pretty good credit. I expect you'll find a car loan that will have a lower APR than you could get investing your money otherwise - especially if you do not have established excellent credit - to simply be a phantom (you won't find it), and even if you could it is more risky than it is worth. Furthermore, if establishing credit is important to you (such as for buying a house down the road), you can build an excellent credit score without ever having a car loan. So you don't have to buy a car on borrowed money just to hope to get approved for a house some day - it's just not a requirement. Finally, I urge you to make a decision on the best car for you in your situation, ignoring the credit score - especially if you are more than 3-5+ years away from buying a house. Everything else about buying a car is more important - the actual cost of the car, year, mileage, suitability for your needs, gas mileage, maintenance and insurance costs, etc. Then, at the very end of your decision making process, ensure that buying the car would not put you dangerously low on savings by squeezing your emergency fund. Decide if you really need a loan or as expensive of a car, considering the costs over the expected life of you owning the car (or at least the next 2-5 years). Never get trapped into just thinking about monthly payments, which hide the true cost of loans and buying beyond what you can afford to purchase today.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0fe33895155584f1300c18b4cf9ef9f",
"text": "Presumably you need a car to get to work, so let's start with the assumption that you need to buy something to replace the car you just lost. The biggest difficulty to overcome in buying a car is the concept of the monthly payment. Dealers will play games with all of the numbers to massage a monthly payment that the buyer can swallow, but this usually doesn't end up giving the customer the best deal. The 18 month term is not normal for a lease, typically you'll see 24 or 36 months. You are focusing on another goal of paying your student loans by then which would free up much more money for other wants (like a car) but at what cost? The big difficulty of personal finance is the mental mind game of delaying gratification for greater long-term benefit. You are focusing on paying your student loans now so that you can be free of that debt and have more flexibility for the future. Good. You're tempted to spend another $5400 (assuming no down-payment or other surprise fees) to drive a car for 18 months. That doesn't sound any wiser than $5,000 for an unreliable used car that gave you more problems than you bargained for. Presumably you got some percentage of that money back from the insurance company when the car was totaled, but even if not, the real lesson should be finding a car that you can afford up-front, but also one that you can still use when the loan is paid off (like your education--that investment will keep giving even when the loans are a distant memory). My advice would be to look for a car that has about 30k miles on it and pay for it as quickly as possible, then drive it at least for 70-120k more miles before replacing it. You may wish for a newer car, especially in 3 or 4 more years when it starts to show its age, but you'll also thank yourself when you can buy a newer better car with cash and break out of the monthly payment game that dealers try to push on you. You might even enjoy negotiating with car salesmen when you see through their manipulations and simply work for the best cash price you can get.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "094aa04c581a0d869f01bc839b318bd4",
"text": "You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f64b356af646c6d4ba154440a0d05462",
"text": "\"I usually recommend along these lines. If you are going to drive the same car for many years, then buy. Your almost always better to buy, and then drive a car for 10 years than to lease and replace it every 2 years. If you want a new car every two years then lease. You're usually better off leasing if you're going to replace the car before the auto loan is paid off or shortly there after. Also you can get \"\"more car\"\" for the same monthly money via leasing. I honestly would advise you to either buy out your lease, or buy a barely used car. Then drive it for as long as you can. Take the extra money you would spend and spend it on an awesome vacation or something. Also, if you're only driving 15 miles a day, then get a cheap, but solid car. Again, just my advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2aa9ba776cab68fb9f0bd1333bbea3b",
"text": "\"You can find out the most money they will loan you for a car loan when you approach your current bank/credit union. They should be willing to layout options based on your income, and credit history. You then have to decide if those terms work for you. There are several dangers with getting loan estimates, they may be willing to lend you more than you can actually handle. They think you can afford it, but maybe you can't. They may also have a loan with a longer term, which does bring the monthly cost down, but exposes you to being upside down on the loan. You then use this a a data point when looking at other lenders. The last place you look is the auto dealer. They will be trying to pressure you on both the loan and the price, that is not the time to do doing complex mental calculations. The Suntrust web page was interesting, it included the quote: The lowest rate in each range is for LightStream's unsecured auto loan product and requires that you have an excellent credit profile. It also induced the example the rate of 2.19% - 4.24% for a 24 to 36 month loan of $10,000 to $24,999 for a used car purchased from a dealer. Also note that my local credit union has a new/used loan at 1.49%, but you have to be a member. Sunstrust seems to be in the minority. In general a loan for X$ and y months will have a lower rate if it is secured with collateral. But Suntrust is offering unsecured loans (i.e. no collateral) at a low rate. The big benefit for their product is that you get the cash today. You can get the cash before you know what you want to buy. You get the cash before you have negotiated with the dealer. That makes that step easier. Now will they in the near future ask for proof you bought a car with the money? no idea. If you went to the same web page and wanted a debt consolidation loan the rate for the same $ range and the same months is: 5.49% - 11.24% the quote now changes to: The lowest rate in each range requires that you have an excellent credit profile. I have no idea what rate they will actually approve you for. It is possible that if you don't have excellent credit the rate rises quickly, but 4.24% for the worst auto loan is better than 5.49% for the best debt consolidation. Excellent Credit Given the unique nature of each individual’s credit situation, LightStream believes there is no single definition for \"\"excellent credit\"\". However, we find individuals with excellent credit usually share the following characteristics: Finally, it should be noted again that each individual situation is different and that we make our credit judgment based on the specific facts of that situation. Ultimately our determination of excellent credit is based on whether we conclude that there is a very high likelihood that our loan will be repaid in a full and timely manner. All the rates mentioned in this answer are from 15 July 2017.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "879a2f9d08d157b5b6885499455c88a8",
"text": "Generally, banks will report your loan to at least one (if not all three) credit bureaus - although that is not required by law. The interest you're paying, in addition to your insurance isn't justifiable for building credit. I would recommend paying the car off and then perhaps applying for a secure credit card if you are worried about being rejected. Of course, since you have very little credit, applying for an unsecured card and getting rejected won't hurt you in the long run. If you are rejected, you can always go for a secured credit card the second time. As I mentioned in my comments, it's better to show 6 months of on-time payments than to have no payment history at all. So if your goal is to secure an apartment near campus, I'm sure you're already a step ahead of the other students.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe53fc578ef231eb4f000c990378512f",
"text": "You have a good start (estimated max amount you will pay, estimated max down payment, and term) Now go to your bank/credit union and apply for the loan. Get a commitment. They will give you a letter, you may have to ask for it. The letter will say the maximum amount you can pay for the car. This max includes their money and your down payment. The dealer doesn't have to know how much is loan. You also know from the loan commitment exactly how much your monthly payment will be in the worst case. If you have a car you want to trade in, get an written estimate that is good for a week or so. This lets you know how much you can get from selling the car. Now visit the dealer and tell them you don't need a loan, and won't be trading in a car. Don't show them the letter. After all the details of the purchase are concluded, including any rebates and specials, then bring up financing and trade-in. If they can't beat the deal from your bank and the written estimate for the car you are selling, then the deal is done. Now show them the letter and discuss how much down they need today. Then go to the bank for the rest of the money. If they do have a better loan deal or trade in then go with the dealer offer, and keep the letter in your pocket. If you go to the dealer first they will confuse you because they will see the price, interest rate, length of loan, and trade in as one big ball of mud. They will pick the settings that make you happy enough, yet still make them the most money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64cf0d2338f6ae238a4a3a8d17dd71a9",
"text": "\"Any one of your three options is viable and has its advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I would go for the used option, but I am can-do kind of person. If you don't like micro-managing a car, you may prefer leasing. A new car is sort of the middle of the road option. Leasing will be most expensive and most liability. If you have an accident, the leasing arrangements are designed to extract money from you... heavily. Even a minor accident can require you to pay for expensive repairs, usually much more expensive than if you had your own car fixed. So, not only will you pay more per month, but your accident liability will be a lot higher. With your own car, you will need to sell it (or bring it back to the UK) obviously. A used car will be the cheapest option. A non-descript used car from the local area can also make you \"\"blend in\"\" and be less like to be targeted by a criminal as an outsider. As long as you stay away from dealers and buy the car from a private person of good reputation, you have an odds-on chance of getting a decent car. Make sure you check out the person and make sure they are \"\"real\"\". Some dealers, called \"\"curbstoners\"\", try to pretend to be original owners. You can always spot such frauds because the title will be new. Make sure the same owner has had the car for at least 3-4 years and that it says that on the title. Also, try to buy from somebody who is financially well off--they have less reason to try to screw you. Students, people under 30 and working class are bad people to buy from. Married professionals over age 35 are the right kind of person to buy from.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "438bad75d87d85c9b5fcb2144e7da298",
"text": "Ideally you would negotiate a car price without ever mentioning: And other factors that affect the price. You and the dealer would then negotiate a true price for the car, followed by the application of rebates, followed by negotiating for the loan if there is to be one. In practice this rarely happens. The sales rep asks point blank what rebates you qualify for (by asking get-to-know-you questions like where you work or if you served in the armed forces - you may not realize that these are do-you-qualify-for-a-rebate questions) before you've even chosen a model. They take that into account right from the beginning, along with whether they'll make a profit lending you money, or have to spend something to subsidize your zero percent loan. However unlike your veteran's status, your loan intentions are changeable. So when you get to the end you can ask if the price could be improved by paying cash. Or you could try putting the negotiated price on a credit card, and when they don't like that, ask for a further discount to stop you from using the credit card and paying cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "968b4cb1fc34aafd1f9a4bb0445e8ef4",
"text": "\"This was a huge question for me when I graduated high school, should I buy a new or a used car? I opted for buying used. I purchased three cars in the span of 5 years the first two were used. First one was $1500, Honda, reliable for one year than problem after problem made it not worth it to keep. Second car was $2800, Subaru, had no problems for 18 months, then problems started around 130k miles, Headgasket $1800 fix, Fixed it and it still burnt oil. I stopped buying old clunkers after that. Finally I bought a Nissan Sentra for $5500, 30,000 miles, private owner. Over 5 years I found that the difference between your \"\"typical\"\" car for $1500 and the \"\"typical\"\" car you can buy for $5500 is actually a pretty big difference. Things to look for: Low mileage, one owner, recent repairs, search google known issues for the make and model based on the mileage of the car your reviewing, receipts, clean interior, buying from a private owner, getting a deal where they throw in winter tires for free so you already have a set are all things to look for. With that said, buying new is expensive for more than just the ticket price of the car. If you take a loan out you will also need to take out full insurance in order for the bank to loan you the car. This adds a LOT to the price of the car monthly. Depending on your views of insurance and how much you're willing to risk, buying your car outright should be a cheaper alternative over all than buying new. Save save save! Its very probably that the hassles of repair and surprise break downs will frustrate you enough to buy new or newer at some point. But like the previous response said, you worked hard to stay out of debt. I'd say save another grand, buy a decent car for $3000 and continue your wise spending habits! Try to sell your cars for more than you bought them for, look for good deals, buy and sell, work your way up to a newer more reliable car. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "546e467b6c8c0761735740fb3cae79cf",
"text": "sadly, it is illegal in most states to buy a car directly from the manufacturer. as such, most manufacturers do not offer the option even where it is legal. if you really do know exactly what you want (model, color, options, etc.) i recommend you write down your requirements and send it to every dealer in town (via email or fax). include instructions that if they want your business, they are to reply via email (or fax) with a price within 7 days. at least one dealer will reply, and you can deal with whoever has the best price. notes:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7577a8c25ed9cc6e1deef21bd12ed1a",
"text": "One point I don't see above: Consumer's Union (the nonprofit which publishes Consumer Reports) has a service where, for a small fee, they'll send you information about how much the car and each option cost the dealer, how much the dealer is getting back in incentive money from the manufacturer, and some advice about which features are worthwhile, which aren't, and which you should purchase somewhere other than the dealer. Armed with that info, you can discuss the price on an equal footing, negotiating the dealer's necessary profit rather than hiding it behind bogus pricing schemes. Last time I bought a new car, I got this data, walked into the dealer with it visible on my clipboard, offered them $500 over their cost, and basically had the purchase nailed down immediately. It helped that I as willing to accept last year's model and a non-preferred color; that helped him clear inventory and encouraged him to accept the offer. ($500 for 10 minutes' work selling to me, or more after an hour of playing games with someone else plus waiting for that person to walk in the door -- a good salesman will recognize that I'm offering them a good deal. These days I might need to adjust that fair-profit number up a bit; this was about 20 years ago on an $8000 car... but I'm sure CU's paperwork suggests a current starting number.) It isn't quite shelf pricing. But at least it means any haggling is based on near-equal knowledge, so it's much closer to being a fair game.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4035dd53cf08a9a1e6622434653193",
"text": "As someone who was just recently a salesman at Honda, I'd recommend buying a Honda instead :). If you really prefer your Toyota, I always found quote-aggregation services (Truecar, I'm blanking on others) very competitive in their pricing. Alternatively, you could email several dealerships requesting a final sale price inclusive of taxes and tags with the make, model, and accessories you'd wish to purchase, and buy the vehicle from them if your local dealership won't match that price. Please keep in mind this is only persuasive to your local dealership if said competitors are in the same market area (nobody will care if you have a quote from out-of-state). As many other commenters noted, you should arrange your own financing. A staple of the sales process is switching a customer to in-house financing, but this occurs when the dealership offers you better terms than you are getting on your own. So allow them the chance to earn the financing, but don't feel obligated to take it if it doesn't make sense fiscally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abeb0190ccb8b7150937156566d9cf42",
"text": "\"This is my opinion as a car nut. It depends on what you want out of a car. For your situation (paying cash, want to keep the car long-term but also save money) I recommend seriously considering a slightly used vehicle, maybe 2 or 3 years old, or a \"\"certified pre-owned vehicle\"\". Reasons: Much less expensive than a brand new car because the first two years have the biggest depreciation hit. Cars come with a 4-year warranty, so a 3 year old car will still be in warranty. Yes, a certified pre-owned car will have a bit of a premium compared to a private-party used car, but the peace of mind of knowing it's in good shape is worth the extra cost considering you want to keep it long term. Consumer Reports will have good advice on the best values in used cars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40b2b3a47d011c6b8410fc6fae9440ff",
"text": "I have used car buying services through Costco and USAA. Twice with a Ford, and once with a Honda. In all instances I was directed to sales people that were uncommonly friendly and pleasant to work with. I was given a deep discount without any negotiation. In two of the three cases I did not have a trade. In one case I had a trade, and negotiated a deeper discount then was originally offered. Did I get a good deal? Eh, who knows? Really it depends what your goal is. If your goal is to avoid negotiation, avoid idiot salesmen, and receive a good discount then a quality car buying service may be for you. My research, a few years old, indicated Costco's program was better then the USAA one. If your goal is get a deep as a discount as possible on a new car, well then you have some work cut out for you. Keep some hand sanitizer handy when you meet one of the slime ball salesmen. Keep in mind that not everyone understand the difference between the words value and cheap. If your goal is to pay as little as possible for quality transportation. Avoid most dealers and new cars. But I don't think that is what you are looking for.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e0fdb4576340c61fd2243222450ca300
|
Opening American credit cards while residing in the UK
|
[
{
"docid": "5f538cd43a7ff14b53efc78cd59ccfcd",
"text": "To build a US credit record, you need a Social Security Number (SSN), which is now not available for most non-residents. An alternative is an ITIN number, which is now available to non-residents only if they have US income giving a reason to file a US tax return (do you really want to get into all that...). Assuming you did have a reason to get a ITIN (one reason would be if you sold some ebooks via Amazon US, and need a withholding refund under the tax treaty), then recent reports on Flyertalk give mixed results on whether it's possible to get a credit card with an ITIN, and whether that would build a credit record. It does sound possible in some cases. A credit record in any other country would not help. You would certainly need a US address, and banks are increasingly asking for a physical address, rather than just a mailbox. Regardless, building this history would be of limited benefit to you if you later became a US resident, at that point you would be eligible for a new SSN (different from the ITIN) and have to largely start again. If getting a card is the aim, rather than the credit record, you may find some banks that will offer a secured card (or a debit card), to non-residents, especially in areas with lots of Canadian visitors (border, Florida, Arizona). You'd find it a lot easier with a US address though, and you'd need to shop around a lot of banks in person until you find one with the right rules. Most will simply avoid anyone without an SSN.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bbc34e4d32a5731d1a209476eba084e",
"text": "Go to the states on vacation. Get a virtual (or friend's) address. Get an ITIN from the IRS. Open a bank account. Get a secured credit card on your next trip from Capital One – add as much money as you can afford. One year later, you should have a decent credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a4b393fda55da0832a9f58305f6f2f14",
"text": "A more updated answer: USAA is an American bank offering chip and pin credit cards to US customers. USAA membership is restricted to military service members and their relatives, but according to this Los Angeles Times article, you do not need to be a USAA member to get a USAA chip and pin credit card. I'm a USAA member and can testify that my USAA chip and pin MasterCard worked in Europe, so assuming nonmembers get the same kind of card, it will work. However, it's worth noting that for it to work, the place still has to accept MasterCard, which seems somewhat less common in Europe than in the USA. (In Germany in particular, I was rather baffled to find that many places only accept some other European bank cards but not MasterCard/VISA.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c4fbe995683ced388b654d3665d4314",
"text": "Yes you can. I'm a foreigner who uses a tourist visa to enter America and Bank of America opened a checking account for me. I had to go into the branch with my passport and a driving license and it was opened with $100. You do need to give a US address so statements can be sent out but that's about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2806f52999b4b105d7c10eb3835b65e",
"text": "The original poster indicates that he lives in the UK, but there are likely strong similarities with the US banking system that I am more familiar with: The result is that you are likely going to be unable to be approved for 10 checking accounts opened in rapid succession, at least in the US. Finally, in the US, there is no need to have checking accounts with a bank in order to open a credit card with them (although sometimes it can help if you have a low credit score).",
"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": "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": "791b9c92810949d5143fb8de3b0426a3",
"text": "I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfdd43e6bb109477b2927f5a78aa9c38",
"text": "\"The following is based on my Experian credit scoring feedback and experience here in the UK over many years. (And for further information I currently hold a credit score of 999, the highest possible, with 6 credit cards.) Now I'm assuming that while there may be some differences in particulars in your case due to the difference in locality nevertheless the below should hopefully provide some broad guidelines and reasonable conclusion in your situation: Having a large number of active credit accounts may be seen as a negative. However having a large number of settled accounts should on the contrary have a positive effect on your score. As you keep your accounts mostly settled, I think having another card will not be to your detriment and should in time be beneficial. A large total credit balance outstanding may count against you. (But see the next point.) Having your total outstanding debt on all credit accounts be a smaller proportion of your total available credit, counts in your favour. This means having more cards for the same amount of credit in use, is net-net in your favour. It also has the effect of making even larger outstanding credit balances (as in point 2) to be a lower percentage of your total available credit, and consequently will indicate lower risk to lenders. It appears from my experience the higher the highest credit limit on a single card you are issued (and are managing responsibly e.g. either paid off or used responsibly) the better. Needless to say, any late payments count against you. The best thing to do then is to set up a direct debit for the minimum amount to be paid like clockwork every month. Lenders really like consistent payers. :) New credit accounts initially will count against you for a while. But as the accounts age and are managed responsibly or settled they will eventually count in your favour and increase your score. Making many credit applications in a short space of time may count against you as you may be seen to be credit reliant. Conclusion: On balance I would say get the other card. Your credit score might be slightly lower for a couple of months but eventually it will be to your benefit as per the above. Having another card also means more flexibility and more more options if you do end up with a credit balance that you want to finance and pay off over a period as cheaply as possible. In the UK the credit card companies are falling over themselves trying to offer one \"\"interest free\"\" or 0% \"\"balance transfer\"\" offers. Of course they're not truly 0% since you typically have to pay a \"\"transfer fee\"\" of a couple of percent. Still, this can be quite cheap credit, much much cheaper than the headline APR rates actually associated with the cards. The catch is that any additional spending on such cards are paid off first (and attract interest at the normal rate until paid off). Usually also if you miss a payment the interest rate reverts to the normal rate. But these pitfalls are easily avoided (pay by direct debit and don't use card you've got a special deal on for day to day expenses.) So, having more cards available is then very useful because you then have choice. You can roll expensive debts to the cheapest lender at your disposal for as long as they'll offer, and then simply not use that card for any purchases (while paying off the balance as cheaply as possible), meanwhile using another card for day to day expenses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0383a3d4efc2433af856ac82cdaa3e04",
"text": "\"Do you guys know any options that are accessible to any global citizen? Prepaid and stored value cards are anonymous. For an arbitrary reason, the really anonymous ones only allow you to load $500 but there is no regulation that dictates this amount. In the USA, these cards are exempt from being declared at border crossings. Not because they look like credit cards, but because they are exempt by the US Treasury and Customs. The cons is that there are generally fees to use them. US DOJ has done research showing that some groups take advantage of the exemption moving upwards of $50,000 a day between borders, but Congress is fine with this exemption and the burden is always on the government to determine \"\"illicit origin\"\". Stigmatizing how money is moved is only a 30 year old phenomenon, but many free nations do not really have capital controls, they only care that you pay taxes and that the integrity of their stock markets are upheld. Aside from that there are no qualms about anonymity, except from your neighbors but they dont matter for a global citizen. In theory, the UK should have more flexibility in anonymity options, such as stored value cards with higher limits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e651432466f0d37eb0787dcba0048ec2",
"text": "There is (at least) one service that allows you to convert USD, GBP and EUR at the interbank spot rate, and make purchases using a prepaid MasterCard in many more currencies (also at the interbank rate). They currently don't charge any fees (as of September 2015). You could use your US prepaid card to fund your account with Revolut and then spend them in your local currency (HRK?) without fees (you can check the current USD/HRK rate with their currency calculator); you can also withdraw to non-EUR SEPA-enabled bank accounts, but then your bank would charge you for the necessary currency conversion (both by fees and their exchange rate). If you have a bank account in EUR, you could alternatively convert your USD balance to EUR and then withdraw that to your EUR bank account. If your US prepaid card has a corresponding bank account which can be used for ACH direct debit or domestic wire transfers (ask the issuer if you are unsure), TransferWise or a similar service might also be an option; they allow you to fund a transaction using one of those methods and then credit an account in",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee44afaaeb77f2fed647ae241e8bd562",
"text": "I suggest opening a Credit Card that doesn't charge Foreign currency conversion fees. Here is the list of cards without such a fee, Bankrate's Foreign transaction fee credit card chart",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2722f69315341259b6dfc8053db89d61",
"text": "Normal high street accounts certainly are available to non-residents. I have several, and I haven't been resident in the UK for fourteen years. However you do need to open them before you leave. They need identification. Once you have one open, the same bank should be able to open other accounts by mail. The disadvantage of course is that you will pay tax on your earnings, and while you can claim it back that's an unnecessary piece of work if you don't have other UK earnings. I would take the risk of an offshore account, assuming it's with a big reputable bank - the kind that are going to be bailed out if there is another collapse. An alternative might be a fixed term deposit. You lock up your money for three years, and you get it back plus a single interest payment at the end of three years. You would pay nothing in tax while you were gone, but the whole interest amount would be taxable when you got back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39fff282d8a6b1147373b7cb8be6d103",
"text": "MoneysavingExpert has a regularly updated page about the best cards to use outside the UK. At the moment Halifax has a good credit card but you will pay interest on the cash withdrawal. I have a FairFX pre-paid card but that requires a UK address for the card delivery (at least) and can be topped up online from a UK bank account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a96857cf8f4229f9687b18538caa3dcc",
"text": "\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \"\"Dual\"\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6d5e4a45e8d97340f603ba3772fe5a0b
|
What to do when paying for an empty office space?
|
[
{
"docid": "2d337b36d3100ddbcaf5d353a43ddcd6",
"text": "This sounds obvious, but: If the landlord is easygoing, you could ask him if he's okay with you subletting the space, and then you could sublet it. Of course you may have to do some work yourself to find an appropriate tenant and make sure you're doing everything legally, but if it works, it's better than paying rent for nothing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fffb37181a5a07153b6fc298b0a805b",
"text": "Generally speaking, yes, you're obliged to pay rent for the remainder of the lease term. But the landlord is obliged to mitigate damages, so if you can find a suitable tenant the landlord has to let you out of the lease.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f06119600d3aea07f3eb0978ad02434e",
"text": "You would report it as business income on Schedule C. You may be able to take deductions against that income as well (home office, your computer, an android device, any advertising or promotional expenses, etc.) but you'll want to consult an accountant about that. Generally you can only take those kinds of deductions if you use the space or equipment exclusively for business use (not likely if it's just a hobby). The IRS is pretty picky about that stuff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "068fdfe3d42820b093505efed1501d8e",
"text": "In the event that payment is not made by the due date on the invoice then the transaction is essentially null and void and you can sell the work to another client. For your particular situation I would strongly suggest that you implement a sales contract and agreement of original transfer of work of art for any and all future sales of your original works of art. In this contract you need to either enforce payment in full at time of signing or a deposit at signing with payment in full within (X) amount of days and upon delivery of item. In your sales contract you will want to stipulate a late fee in the event that the client does not pay the balance by the date specified, and a clause that stipulates how long after the due date that you will hold the artwork before the client forfeiting deposit and losing rights to the work. You will also want to specify an amount of time that you provide as a grace period in the event client changes their mind about the purchase, and you can make it zero grace period, making all sales final and upon signing of the agreement the client agrees to the terms and is locked into the sale. In which point if they back out they forfeit all deposits paid. I own a custom web design business and we implement a similar agreement for all works that we create for a client, requiring a 50% deposit in advance of work being started, an additional 25% at time of client accepting the design/layout and the final 25% at delivery of finished product. In the event that a client fails to meet the requirements of the contract for the second or final installment payments the client forfeits all money paid and actually owes us 70% of total quoted project price for wasting our time. We have only had to enforce these stipulations on one client in 5 years! The benefit to you for requiring a deposit if payment is not made in full is that it ensures that the client is serious about purchasing the work because they have put money in the game rather than just their word of wanting to purchase. Think of it like putting earnest money down when you make an offer to buy a house. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "865615acb30248354ccda7ef4be8a01b",
"text": "\"I've been in a very similar situation to yours in the past. Since the company is reimbursing you at a flat rate (I assume you don't need to provide documentation/receipts in order to be paid the per diem), it's not directly connected to the $90 in expenses that you mention. Unless they were taking taxes out that would need to be reimbursed, the separate category for Assets:Reimbursable:Gotham City serves no real purpose, other than to categorize the expenses. Since there is no direct relationship between your expenses and the reimbursement, I would list them as completely separate transactions: Later, if you needed to locate all of the associated expenses with the Gotham trip, gnucash lets you search on memo text for \"\"Gotham\"\" and will display all of the related transactions. This is a lot cleaner than having to determine what piece of the per diem goes to which expenses, or having to create a new Asset account every time you go on a trip.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a15288202efc7737369c6b1b2bf40577",
"text": "\"First check: Do you have all the insurances you need? The two insurances everyone should have are: Another insurance you might want to get is a contents insurance (\"\"Hausratsversicherung\"\"). But if you don't own any super-expensive furniture or artworks, you might also opt to self-insure and cover it with: Priority 2: Emergency fund. Due to the excellent healthcare and welfare system in Germany, this is not as important as in many other countries. But knowing that you have a few thousand € laying around in liquid assets in case something expensive breaks down can really help you sleep at night. If you decide not to pay for contents insurance, calculate what it would cost you if there is a fire in your apartment and you would have to replace everything. That's how large your emergency fund needs to be. You also need a larger emergency fund if you are a homeowner, because as a homeowner there might always be an emergency repair you have to pay for. Priority 3: Retirement. Unless there will be some serious retirement reforms in the next 40 years (and I would not bet on that!), the government-provided pension will not be enough to cover your lifestyle cost. If you don't want to suffer from poverty as a senior citizen you will have to build up a retirement plan now. Check which options your company provides (\"\"Betriebliche Altersvorsorge\"\") and what retirement options you have which give you free money from the government (\"\"Riester-Rente\"\"). Getting professional advise to compare all the options with each other can be really beneficial. Priority 4: Save for a home. In the long-run, owning a home is much cheaper than renting one. Paying of a mortgage is just like paying rent - but with the difference that the money you pay every month isn't spent. Most of it (minus interest and building maintenance costs) stays your capital! At one point you will have paid it off and then you never have to pay rent in your life. It even secures the financial future of your children and grandchildren, who will inherit your home. But few banks will give you a good interest rate if you have no own capital at all. So you should start saving money now. Invest a few hundred € every month in a long-term portfolio. You might also get some additional free money for this purpose from your employer (\"\"Vermögenswirksame Leistungen\"\").\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a4517829633220b631b2b74684ce8d1",
"text": "\"Scenario 1: Assume that you plan to keep the parking space for the rest of your life and collect the income from the rental. You say these spaces rent for $250 per month and there are fees of $1400 per year. Are there any other costs? Like would you be responsible for the cost of repaving at some point? But assuming that's covered in the $1400, the net profit is 250 x 12 - 1400 = $1600 per year. So now the question becomes, what other things could you invest your money in, and what sort of returns do those give? If, say, you have investments in the stock market that are generating a 10% annual return and you expect that rate of return to continue indefinitely, than if you pay a price that gives you a return of less than 10%, i.e. if you pay more than $16,000, then you would be better off to put the money in the stock market. That is, you should calculate the fair price \"\"backwards\"\": What return on investment is acceptable, and then what price would I have to pay to get that ROI? Oh, you should also consider what the \"\"occupancy rate\"\" on such parking spaces is. Is there enough demand that you can realistically expect to have it rented out 100% of the time? When one renter leaves, how long does it take to find another? And do you have any information on how often renters fail to pay the rent? I own a house that I rent out and I had two tenants in a row who failed to pay the rent, and the legal process to get them evicted takes months. I don't know what it takes to \"\"evict\"\" someone from a parking space. Scenario 2: You expect to collect rent on this space for some period of time, and then someday sell it. In that case, there's an additional piece of information you need: How much can you expect to get for this property when you sell it? This is almost surely highly speculative. But you could certainly look at past pricing trends. If you see that the value of a parking space in your area has been going up by, whatever, say 4% per year for the past 20 years, it's reasonable to plan on the assumption that this trend will continue. If it's been up and down and all over the place, you could be taking a real gamble. If you pay $30,000 for it today and when the time comes to sell the best you can get is $15,000, that's not so good. But if there is some reasonable consistent average rate of growth in value, you can add this to the expected rents. Like if you can expect it to grow in value by $1000 per year, then the return on your investment is the $1600 in rent plus $1000 in capital growth equals $2600. Then again do an ROI calculation based on potential returns from other investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cfb64bbf0a388ad9bda6cea06cdc2ce",
"text": "\"There's many concrete answers, but there's something circular about your question. The only thing I can think of is that phone service providers ask for credit report when you want to start a new account but I am sure that could be worked around if you just put down a cash deposit in some cases. So now the situation is flipped - you are relying on your phone company's credit! Who is to say they don't just walk away from their end of the deal now that you have paid in full? The amount of credit in this situation is conserved. You just have to eat the risk and rely on their credit, because you have no credit. It doesn't matter how much money you have - $10 or $10000 can be extorted out of you equally well if you must always pay for future goods up front. You also can't use that money month-by-month now, even in low-risk investments. Although, they will do exactly that and keep the interest. And I challenge your assumption that you will never default. You are not a seraphic being. You live on planet earth. Ever had to pay $125,000 for a chemo treatment because you got a rare form of cancer? Well, you won't be able to default on your phone plan and pay for your drug (or food, if you bankrupt yourself on the drug) because your money is already gone. I know you asked a simpler question but I can't write a good answer without pointing out that \"\"no default\"\" is a bad model, it's like doing math without a zero element. By the way, this is realistic. It applies to renting in, say, New York City. It's better to be a tenant with credit who can withhold rent in issue of neglected maintenance or gross unfair treatment, than a tenant who has already paid full rent and has left the landlord with little market incentive to do their part.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db0221308f2e18423acbf06d86c2cda6",
"text": "What you are doing is unethical and illegal but is very hard to catch and prosecute. The key thing for an unethical person to think about here is insurance. For most government incentive programs you have to have the intention to live there. It is extremely hard to prove intent - unless you ask this question under your name on a public forum that is archived by many search engines and maintains a log of all changes. For other folks, it is common for them to claim that they intended to take residence but were surprised that their finances didn't work the way they anticipated. Still, as long as the bank is paid, it is unlikely that they will investigate. However, what happens if there is a major repair needed? You have insurance - because your bank has asked for proof of insurance before they will give a mortgage. That insurance is for an owner occupied building, which you do not have. Your insurance will inspect your claim. If the circumstances do not match what you are insured for because you have lied to the insurance company, they will not pay your claim - which they are entitled to do. You are operating uninsured with tenants. This is a hidden risk you may not be considering. Tenants do not treat property with the same care as an owner - this is why they are insured differently. You are now paying for insurance that you will have a difficult time ever filing a claim on. In addition, if something were to happen that makes it time to claim the insurance value so that you can pay off the mortgage, the insurance company will investigate. They may very easily refuse to pay your fraudulent claim. They may refer you to the police for insurance fraud. The bank will want their money. If they discover that you were not occupying the property, they may just foreclose. They may also notify the government that you were not occupying the property, at which point some one might search and find that you were showing intent to defraud the program out of money that is free for you but gotten through deception. Consider a less risky unethical path like telling people you've been locked out of your car and just need a little money to pay the locksmith to open it. You promise to pay them right back once you get in your car where your wallet is. Then take their money and go find another sucker. It's ethically equivalent and you are much less likely to go to jail. However you have to face the people you are deceiving for money, so you may feel less comfortable. Good luck making your decisions!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be3c8d3efe5a5b9a7ed16ceb0d839d20",
"text": "Pay off the credit card, tear it up and never get another one. The rest of the money I would add to your emergency fund/save for the anticipated home repairs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6830b4a00a77d74e8a72476ae00b7c",
"text": "Narratively from the POV of the landlord, the hip retailer ABC offered me a 10 year lease at $1000/month for an empty store front on an empty block. I agreed. ABC attracted a large youth market, so other stores filled in the rest of the block in the intervening decade, which I leased for 1200, 1500, 2000, and finally 4000 per month since the foot traffic and demographic is so strong. It's now year 9. Next year, the lease will likely jump up to the comparable 4000 per square foot. Their margin in this location probably looks great today. But the purpose of the quote is to warn you to check the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bbabfbd9e194fcd9a3fcd566cc2d9c1",
"text": "\"I don't know what country you live in or what the laws and practical circumstances of owning rental property there are. But I own a rental property in the U.S., and I can tell you that there are a lot of headaches that go with it. One: Maintenance. You say you have to pay an annual fee of 2,400 for \"\"building maintenance\"\". Does that cover all maintenance to the unit or only the exterior? I mean, here in the U.S. if you own a condo (we call a unit like you describe a \"\"condo\"\" -- if you rent it, it's an apartment; if you own it, it's a condo) you typically pay an annual fee that cover maintenance \"\"from the walls out\"\", that is, it covers maintenance to the exterior of the building, the parking lot, any common recreational areas like a swimming pool, etc. But it doesn't cover interior maintenance. If there's a problem with interior wiring or plumbing or the carpet needs to be replaced or the place needs painting, that's up to you. With a rental unit, those expenses can be substantial. On my rental property, sure, most months the maintenance is zero: things don't break every month. But if the furnace needs to be replaced or there's a major plumbing problem, it can cost thousands. And you can get hit with lots of nitnoid expenses. While my place was vacant I turned the water heater down to save on utility expenses. Then a tenant moved in and complained that the water heater didn't work. We sent a plumber out who quickly figured out that she didn't realize she had to turn the knob up. Then of course he had to hang around while the water heated up to make sure that was all it was. It cost me, umm, I think $170 to have someone turn that knob. (But I probably saved over $15 on the gas bill by turning it down for the couple of months the place was empty!) Two: What happens when you get a bad tenant? Here in the U.S., theoretically you only have to give 3 days notice to evict a tenant who damages the property or fails to pay the rent. But in practice, they don't leave. Then you have to go to court to get the police to throw them out. When you contact the court, they will schedule a hearing in a month or two. If your case is clear cut -- like the tenant hasn't paid the rent for two months or more -- you will win easily. Both times I've had to do this the tenant didn't even bother to show up so I won by default. So then you have a piece of paper saying the court orders them to leave. You have to wait another month or two for the police to get around to actually going to the unit and ordering them out. So say a tenant fails to pay the rent. In real life you're probably not going to evict someone for being a day or two late, but let's say you're pretty hard-nosed about it and start eviction proceedings when they're a month late. There's at least another two or three months before they're actually going to be out of the place. Of course once you send them an eviction notice they're not going to pay the rent any more. So you have to go four, five months with these people living in your property but not paying any rent. On top of that, some tenants do serious damage to the property. It's not theirs: they don't have much incentive to take care of it. If you evict someone, they may deliberately trash the place out of spite. One tenant I had to evict did over $13,000 in damage. So I'm not saying, don't rent the place out. What I am saying is, be sure to include all your real costs in your calculation. Think of all the things that could go wrong as well as all the things that could go right.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d8b09907e8aefd522de4e0842820320",
"text": "That interesting. It seems like an apt building could use that for its residents. I think I saw the amount quoted at $470/month, but since there isn't a market it's probably speculative to say anything about what it would cost a consumer or group of consumers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33815eb947ceaf1d6ce9d49424d4d5eb",
"text": "As was once famously said, Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. — Benjamin Franklin, 1789 It's very likely that either the company or you personally is going to have to pay taxes on that money. Really the only way to avoid it would be if the company spent that money on next year's expenses, and paid the bill before the end of this year. Of course you can only do that if the recipient is willing to receive their money so far in advance, which isn't necessarily the case since they would pay more taxes this year as a result. As for whether it's better to have the company pay the tax or for you to do as your accountant suggests, there are a lot of factors that go into that equation, and my gut feeling is that your accountant already ran it both ways and is suggesting the better choice.",
"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": "27c4fa7aee412129f871b382dddcff65",
"text": "\"You are pushing your luck, but not because you're not in the US, because it is likely that you're not qualified. From what you said, I doubt you can take it (I'm not a professional though, get a professional opinion). You say \"\"dedicated space\"\". It has to be an exclusive room. You cannot deduct 10 sq. ft. from your living room because your computer that is used wholly for your business is there. It has to be a room that is used exclusively for your business, and for your business only. I.e.: nothing not related to the business is there, and when you're there the only thing you do is working on your business. Your office doesn't have to be in the US necessarily, to the best of my knowledge. Your office must be in your home. If you take primary residence exclusion as part of your FEI, then I doubt you can deduct as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c7494f65e738ea5645c9c5d44b7a4fd",
"text": "As DJClayworth said, be very careful with this one! The property is a residence, not a business location. Given that, it is almost a certainty that the IRS is not going to let you claim 100% of the expenses for the home as a business expense, even if nobody's actually living there. You may get away with doing this for a period of time and not run into zoning or other issues such as those DJ mentioned, but it's like begging for trouble. You run the very real risk of being audited if you try to do what you're proposing, and rest assured, whatever you saved in taxes will disappear like smoke in the wind under an audit. That being said, there's no reason you can't call a tax service and ask a simple question, because in answering it they're going to hope to gain your business. It'd be well worth the phone call before you land yourself in any hot water with the IRS. I can tell you that I'd rather have a double root canal with no anesthetic than go through an audit, even when I didn't do anything wrong! (grin) Good luck!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e055b5c69f09daa22fc70f00f36bc9a7
|
Should I buy or lease a car given that its not a super luxury car and I only drive 15 miles/d on avg?
|
[
{
"docid": "7059a7d0bfe3ad4e22effcd4c6298c90",
"text": "I have a few recommendations/comments: The trick here is to make it clear to the dealer that you will not be getting a new car from them and their only hope of making some money is to sell you your own car. You need to be prepared to walk away and follow through. DON'T buy a new car from them even if you end up turning it in! They could still come back a day later and offer a deal. Leasing a new car every 3 years is not the best use of money. You have to really, really like that new car feeling every three years and be willing to pay a premium for it. If you're a car nut (like me) and want to spend money on a luxury car, it's far wiser to purchase a slightly used luxury vehicle, keep it for 8+ years, and that way you won't have a car payment half the time!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4ee97c68281a1e2de37b6a52989a6a1",
"text": "If you lease a car, you are paying for the depreciation of a certain number of miles, even if you don't actually use those miles. Since you know you will be well under the standard number of miles when your lease is up, and you already know that you want to keep the car, buying is better than leasing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e9b3afd041177df172055cd40cbd57b",
"text": "Alternative: buy a recent-model used car in good condition. Or buy an older car in good condition. Let someone else pay the heavy depreciation that happens the moment you drive a new car off the dealer's lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9a633681e25df3cae2e62691e152a14",
"text": "Which to do is determined by how you like to consume cars. If you don't drive a lot and like to get a new car every 2-3 years, leasing is often the better choice. If you drive a lot or want to keep a car longer than 3 years, you're normally better buying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20ce18a718c5c3163fe63f2a2e04f3a1",
"text": "Leasing is not exactly a scam, but it doesn't seem to be the right product for you. The point of leasing over buying is that it turns the capital purchase of a car which needs to be depreciated for tax purposes into what is effectively a rental expense. Rent is an expense that can be deducted directly without depreciation. If you are not operating a business where you can take advantage of leasing's tax advantages, leasing is probably not for you. Because of the tax advantages, a lease can be more profitable for the car dealer. They can get a commission or finder's fee on the lease as well as the commission on the car sale. That extra profit comes from somewhere, presumably from you. If a business, you can then pass part of that to the government. As an individual, you lose that advantage. At this point, the best financial decision that you could make would be to buy out the lease on your current car. Lease prices are set based on the assumption that the car will have been abused during the course of the lease. If you are driving the car less than expected, its value is probably higher than the cost of buying out the lease. If you buy that car, you can drive it for years. Save up some money and buy your next car for cash rather than using financing. Of course, if you really want a new car and can afford it, you may not want to buy out the lease. That is of course your decision. You don't have to maximize your current financial position if buying a new car would return more satisfaction for the money in the long run. I would try to avoid financing for what is essentially a pleasure purchase though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f64b356af646c6d4ba154440a0d05462",
"text": "\"I usually recommend along these lines. If you are going to drive the same car for many years, then buy. Your almost always better to buy, and then drive a car for 10 years than to lease and replace it every 2 years. If you want a new car every two years then lease. You're usually better off leasing if you're going to replace the car before the auto loan is paid off or shortly there after. Also you can get \"\"more car\"\" for the same monthly money via leasing. I honestly would advise you to either buy out your lease, or buy a barely used car. Then drive it for as long as you can. Take the extra money you would spend and spend it on an awesome vacation or something. Also, if you're only driving 15 miles a day, then get a cheap, but solid car. Again, just my advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f0fa119f4e2afee44fcb054afb94a81",
"text": "\"Cars depreciate and lose value the second you drive off the lot. Why lose money? Foreign cars require too much maintenance. What will kill your wallet will be the maintenance on the car, not the payment. Think tires, oil changes, spark plug changes, transmission oil changes, filter changes, brake changes, cost of maintaining is the expensive part. Call the dealer speak to the servicing dept, and go to town. Ask away what all this costs. Basic stuff you expect to have, and find out what the cost of owning that car. Then ask yourself, \"\"should I buy it?\"\".\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dcf99768351a755e14a69fdb57a8ff5e",
"text": "\"Electric does make a difference when considering whether to lease or buy. The make/model is something to consider. The state you live in also makes a difference. If you are purchasing a small electric compliance car (like the Fiat 500e), leasing is almost always a better deal. These cars are often only available in certain states (California and Oregon), and the lease deals available are very enticing. For example, the Fiat 500e is often available at well under $100/mo in a three-year lease with $0 down, while purchasing it would cost far more ($30k, minus credits/rebates = $20k), even when considering the residual value. If you want to own a Tesla Model S, I recommend purchasing a used car -- the market is somewhat flooded with used Teslas because some owners like to upgrade to the latest and greatest features and take a pretty big loss on their \"\"old\"\" Tesla. You can save a lot of money on a pre-owned Model S with relatively low miles, and the battery packs have been holding up well. If you have your heart set on a new Model S, I would treat it like any other vehicle and do the comparison of lease vs buy. One thing to keep in mind that buying a Model S before the end of 2016 will grandfather you into the free supercharging for life, which makes the car more valuable in the future. Right now (2016/2017) there is a $7500 federal tax credit when buying an electric vehicle. If you lease, the leasing company gets the credit, not you. The cost of the lease should indirectly reflect this credit, however. Some states have additional incentives. California has a $2500 rebate, for example, that you can receive even if you lease the vehicle. To summarize: a small compliance car often has very good reasons to lease. An expensive luxury car like the Tesla can be looked at like any other lease vs buy decision, and buying a used Model S may save the most money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94879e15d3965ff10dffe5aaac5ff8f4",
"text": "Auto insurance is a highly personalized item, so depending on your driving record and other factors, $600 a month for full coverage may be as good as you can get. Look at the premium for each category, and consider raising the deductible if you have some savings that could be used in the event that you have a claim. Also, you're not only buying insurance to cover the other person's damage and medical expenses, you're paying for insurance for your car. Brand-new cars are more expensive to replace (and thus insure) than used cars. Leasing is effectively renting a car for a long period of time. While the payments are less, when the lease expires you're going to have to decide whether to give up the car or buying it, usually at a price much higher than market value. I'm glad you discovered that the insurance would break your budget before it's too late. My suggestion would be to look for a 1-2 year old car that's less expensive to buy and to insure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46f295dd712175146f902bb3afbad09b",
"text": "\"You are still paying a heavy price for the 'instant gratification' of driving (renting) a brand-new car that you will not own at the end of the terms. It is not a good idea in your case, since this luxury expense sounds like a large amount of money for you. Edited to better answer question The most cost effective solution: Purchase a $2000 car now. Place the $300/mo payment aside for 3 years. Then, go buy a similar car that is 3 years old. You will have almost $10k in cash and probably will need minimal, if any, financing. Same as this answer from Pete: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/63079/40014 Does this plan seem like a reasonable way to proceed, or a big mistake? \"\"Reasonable\"\" is what you must decide. As the first paragraph states, you are paying a large expense to operate the vehicle. Whether you lease or buy, you are still paying this expense, especially from the depreciation on a new vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to pay for this luxury if the cost is significant to you. That said, it will probably not be a 'big mistake' that will destroy your finances, just not the best way to set yourself up for long-term success.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad1ae30cbee62489664b6f08356add4e",
"text": "I must say, I can't completely agree with the tone of most of these answers. I think there may be a good reason to buy a new car, or a luxurious used car. For years I drove old, second hand cars that were really cheap. and unreliable. I can't count the number of times I was left stranded because my car didn't start, or the alternator burned out. I could have bought more recent models, but I was trying to save money. But in 2010 I found a very low mileage 2008 Smart Car for small money. It was a good deal at the time. It was almost new, having very low mileage, and about 60% of the price of a new, less well appointed Smart. I found out that I really like driving cars that won't break down and leave me stranded in sleet or ice storms. When my wife's Mazda hatchback finally rusted to the point that it wouldn't pass the safety inspection and couldn't be repaired, we bought a new 2013 Toyota Rav4. We are really happy with it. It's probably not a luxury car to you, but having reliable heat and air conditioning seems like luxury to us, and we are happy with our decision. I get the Smart serviced at the Mercedes shop. They have very nice coffee and pastries, and very fast free wifi.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d17b29c137d112b63e73934182b900c",
"text": "\"There are two reasons leases are generally a worse deal than buying. First, inherent in the lease is the concept of trading in the car at the end of the lease term. As we all know, cars depreciate the most in the first year or two. By repeatedly leasing cars on short time frames, you own the vehicles during those most expensive years. Of course there's nothing stopping you from doing the same thing when buying (be it via cash or loan), but leasing builds in a schedule and encourages you to stick to it. Second, it is easier for the dealer salesperson to hide things from the consumer in a lease contract. Most salespeople will try to get a car purchaser to focus on the monthly payment, or they'll four-box the purchaser, but even then there's only 4 numbers, and most consumers have a rough idea what they are and what they mean. But in a lease the numbers in question are renamed and obscured. \"\"Price\"\" becomes \"\"capitalized cost\"\". \"\"Interest rate\"\" becomes \"\"money factor\"\" and is divided by 2400, making it look really small and not easily translatable without a calculator or pencil and paper. \"\"Down payment\"\" becomes a capitalized cost reduction. There's a new concept \"\"residual value.\"\" Neither of those reasons change when interest rate is lower.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "464cbae1aff1457fc0fc804fb43863e4",
"text": "I have coworker who reported that he leased a Nissan Leaf from 2013-2016 and was offered $4000 off the contracted purchase price at the end of the lease due to a glut of other lessees turning in for a lease on the newest model with greater range. It's not clear that this experience will be repeated by others three years from now, but there is enough uncertainty in the future electric car market that it's quite possible to have faster depreciation on a new vehicle than you might otherwise expect based on experience with conventional internal combustion powered vehicles. Leasing will remove that uncertainty. Purchasing a lease-return can also offer great value. I looked at the price for a lease return + a new battery with the extended range, and it was still significantly cheaper than buying a completely new vehicle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed2a440591aaa7a4df75c0943e7628ae",
"text": "I'd approach the lender that you're getting the lease from, but be prepared for them either saying 'no' to putting the lease into the name of an LLC without any proven track record (because it hasn't been around for a while) or require you to sign a personal guarantee, which partially defeats the purpose of putting the car lease into the LLC. I'd also talk to an accountant to see if you can't just charge the business the mileage on your vehicle as that might be the simplest solution, especially if the lender gets stroppy. Of course the mileage rate might not cover the expense for the lease as that one is designed to cover the steepest part of the depreciation curve. Does your LLC generate the revenue needed so it can take on the lease in the first place? If it's a new business you might not need or want the drain on your finances that a lease can be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac870f795fa816cd1f34ff8b7abe5c10",
"text": "Buying this car would be a good idea because you will quickly learn why you feel you need a BMW (that you cannot afford). This is not an investment, but a financing decision, beyond your means of living. As a future MBA you will regret not investing this money now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a126eabc0702abd8448d4555f3a2125b",
"text": "I tend to agree with Rocky's answer. However it sounds like you want to look at this from the numbers side of things. So let's consider some numbers: I'm assuming you have the money to buy the new car available as cash in hand, and that if you don't buy the car, you'll invest it reasonably. So if you buy the new car today, you're $17K out of pocket. Let's look at some scenarios and compare. Assuming: If you buy the new car today, then after 1 year you'll have: If you keep the old car, after 1 year you get: After 2 years, you have: And after 3 years, you're at: Or in other words, nothing depletes the value of your assets faster than buying the new car. After 1 year, you've essentially lost $5K to depreciation. However, over the short term the immediate cost of the tires combined with the continued depreciation of the old car do reduce your purchasing power somewhat (you won't be able to muster $25K towards a new car without chipping in a bit of extra cash), and inflation will tend to drive the cost of the new car up as time goes on. So the relative gap between the value of your assets and the cost of the new car tends to increase, though it stays well below the $5k that you lose to depreciation if you buy the new car immediately. Which is something that you could potentially spin to support whichever side you prefer, I suppose. Though note that I've made some fairly pessimistic assumptions. In particular, the current U.S. inflation rate is under 1%, and a new car may depreciate by as much as 25% in the first year while older cars may depreciate by less than the 8% assumed. And I selected the cheapest new car price cited, and didn't credit the tires with adding any value to your old car. Each of those aspects tends to make continuing to drive the older car a better option than buying the new one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a46c54bd1e04b5785a720314fd5d6f80",
"text": "Not really. You just pay the other side of payroll taxes your employer typically pays. That's 7.65% more on your net. Not that much, all things considered. Plus, on part time Uber driving, the depreciation deduction on a car should exceed true depreciation costs. Putting 10K more miles on a car each year does not result in that much extra depreciation. 2010 Honda Civic DX Sedan 4D with 100K miles is worth $4,500 in Good condition, according to KBB. With 130K miles, it's worth $3,900. That's a difference of $600, or $0.02 per mile. You'll have more oil changes, brake replacements, gas, and other operating costs. But depreciation is small potatoes compared to the $0.535 in deductions per mile. Edit: If you would own a car regardless of whether or not you drive for Uber, Uber isn't a bad deal. It's a bad deal if you have to buy a car just to drive for Uber. It's all about the marginal cost of a mile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a53d039df4a55a0bd546570e4d0f657b",
"text": "\"A lease is a rental plain and simple. You borrow money to finance the expected depreciation over the course of the lease term. This arrangement will almost always cost more over time of your \"\"ownership.\"\" That does not mean that a lease is always a worse \"\"deal.\"\" Cars are almost always a losing proposition; save for the oddball Porsche or Ferrari that is too scarce relative to demand. You accept ownership of a car and it starts to lose value. New cars lose value faster than used cars. Typically, if you were to purchase the car, then sell it after 3 years, the total cost over those three years will work out to less total money than the equivalent 36 month lease. But, you will have to come up with a lot more money down, or a higher monthly payment, and/or sell the car after 36 months (assuming the pretty standard 36 month lease). With this in mind, some cars lease better than others because the projected depreciation is more favorable than other brands or models. Personally, I bought a slightly used car certified pre-owned with a agreeable factory warranty extension. My next car I may lease. Late model cars are getting so unbelievably expensive to maintain that more and more I feel like a long term rental has merit. Just understand that for the convenience, for the freeing up of your cash flow, for the unlikelihood of maintenance, to not bother with resale or trading the car in, a lease will cost a premium over a purchase over the same time frame.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17fa3df27d1ee72e8c155bbaccef568d",
"text": "\"Just to argue the other side, 1.49% is pretty low for a loan. Let's say you have the $15k cash but decide to get the car loan at 1.49%. Then you take the rest of the money and invest it in something that pays a ~4% dividend (a utility stock, etc.). You're making money on the difference. Of course, there's no guarantee that the underlying stock won't drop in value, but it might go up, too. And you'll likely pay income tax on the dividends. Still, you have a good chance of making money by taking the loan. So I will argue that there are scenarios where taking advantage of a low interest rate loan can be \"\"good\"\" as an investment opportunity when the risk/reward is acceptable. Be careful, though. There's nothing wrong with paying cash for a car!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "819a29260e55e72603e797d859ed1996",
"text": "If you are talking straight dollars then leasing is always a losing proposition when compared with purchasing. The financial workings of leasing are so confusing that people don’t realize that leasing invariably costs more than an equivalent loan. And even if they did, the extra cost is difficult to calculate. Still, many people can’t afford the higher payments of a typical loan, at least not without putting a substantial amount down. If payments are an issue, consider buying a lower-cost vehicle or a reliable used car. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/12/buying-vs-leasing-basics/index.htm If you are talking about convenience, lifestyle, ability to purchase a car you could not pay for outright, then you will have to evaluate that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09c321175805a970c8bb8b63efec14cf",
"text": "You're looking at a used car, which is good, but I think you can still be much wiser with the type of car you're looking to purchase. Maybe I'm such a fuddy-duddy because I didn't own a car until I was 25, but let's break this down with a small comparison: If you drive 1,000 miles per month with gas at $4/gallon -- which is absurdly conservative, I think -- for five years, then you're looking at an extra $60/month for just gas, and probably twice the payment, compared with a perfectly reliable but more fuel-efficient car from the same year. (Disclosure: I own a 2004 Corolla and love it. I got mine in 2007 for under $10k, and I paid cash.) $300/month or so is a good chunk of change, no? I'd do even more, and pay that loan off (which will almost certainly be less than $500/month) faster by throwing $500/month at it. You'll save hundreds of dollars in interest. Edit based on your additions: There's one thing that you don't see yet that I have. It's only because you're in your early 20s and I'm pushing 40. It is far easier to sock money away when you're single and don't have a family to take care of. (I'm assuming you're not married yet and that you don't have kids. Hopefully it's not a poor assumption.) I would be saving like crazy now if I were in your position. You have a great job for fresh out of college. My first job started ten years ago after grad school at the same salary you're making. Man, it was so easy to save money back then. Now that I'm married with a daughter, a lot of that cushion goes away. I wouldn't trade it for the world, but that's the price of being head of household. If you have any intentions of not being a hermit for the rest of your life (and I hope you do) then you'd be wise to save as much as you can now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c747aeb77488d875c013bbd62f26cef",
"text": "\"As others have already pointed out, there is no monetary sensible reason to borrow at 5% cost to invest at 1% return. However, just because it doesn't make perfect sense financially doesn't mean it can't make sense for peace of mind. And you should not dismiss the peace of mind argument out of hand. Ignoring tax effects, credit score effects, cost of higher levels of insurance required, etc., and assuming a five year repayment plan, borrowing $15,000 at 5% will cost you about $283/month for a total cost of $16,980. 1% interest on the same $15,000 would give you about $12/month. In other words, your \"\"loan premium\"\" is $21/month (interest expense about $33/month on the car loan, reduced by interest earned $12/month on the retained savings) plus the capital repayment amount. If you were to take the money out of savings you would probably want to replenish that over a similar time period (ignoring interest, saving $15,000 in five years means $250/month), so this boils down to the $21/month interest premium. Now consider that the times when an emergency fund is most often needed are very often the times when banks will be reluctant to extend a loan (a job loss being a common example). While foreclosing on an existing loan can still happen, as long as you keep making payments, I suspect that most banks are far more willing to overlook the fact that you would not have qualified for the loan after the job loss. If a loss of income situation develops after you pay the car with your savings without a loan, you start out with $15,000 in the bank plus whatever \"\"car payments to yourself\"\" you have been able to save afterwards. Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6e2d511402d171039341a6f66e22920a
|
Working for recruiter on W-2 vs. working for client on 1099?
|
[
{
"docid": "d66d0b01848a465509e0c72e6739c3a7",
"text": "I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f3518e80bd21b5d27001143b14eba4b",
"text": "The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4a9011e433785e61732b017579a786a1",
"text": "Yes, but make sure you issue a 1099 to these freelancers by 1/31/2016 or you may forfeit your ability to claim the expenses. You will probably need to collect a W-9 from each freelancer but also check with oDesk as they may have the necessary paperwork already in place for this exact reason. Most importantly, consult with a trusted CPA to ensure you are completing all necessary forms correctly and following current IRS rules and regulations. PS - I do this myself for my own business and it's quite simple and straight forward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f41ce7e0d2fa9c6ff52ac387f7808299",
"text": "The committee folks told us Did they also give you advice on your medication? Maybe if they told you to take this medicine or that you'd do that? What is it with people taking tax advice from random people? The committee told you that one person should take income belonging to others because they don't know how to explain to you which form to fill. Essentially, they told you to commit a fraud because forms are hard. I now think about the tax implications, that makes me pretty nervous. Rightly so. Am I going to have to pay tax on $3000 of income, even though my actual winning is only $1000? From the IRS standpoint - yes. Can I take in the $3000 as income with $2000 out as expenses to independent contractors somehow? That's the only solution. You'll have to get their W8's, and issue 1099 to each of them for the amounts you're going to pay them. Essentially you volunteered to do what the award committee was supposed to be doing, on your own dime. Note that if you already got the $3K but haven't paid them yet - you'll pay taxes on $3K for the year 2015, but the expense will be for the year 2016. Except guess what: it may land your international students friends in trouble. They're allowed to win prizes. But they're not allowed to work. Being independent contractor is considered work. While I'm sure if USCIS comes knocking, you'll be kind enough to testify on their behalf, the problem might be that the USCIS won't come knocking. They'll just look at their tax returns and deny their visas/extensions. Bottom line, next time ask a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) before taking advice from random people who just want the headache of figuring out new forms to go away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49beb5701fd58d0437b4ff5bea88d312",
"text": "I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a50bdd1c690e8f51635351fed8dee322",
"text": "\"Your employment status is not 100% clear from the question. Normally, consultants are sole-proprietors or LLC's and are paid with 1099's. They take care of their own taxes, often with schedule C, and they sometimes can but generally do not use \"\"employer\"\" company 401(k). If this is your situation, you can contact any provider you want and set up your own solo 401(k), which will have great investment options and no fees. I do this, through Fidelity. If you are paid with a W2, you are not a consultant. You are an employee and must use your employer's 401(k). Figure out what you are. If you are a consultant, open a solo 401(k) at the provider of your choice. Make sure beforehand that they allow incoming rollovers. Roll all of your previous 401(k)s and IRA's into it. When you have moved your 401(k) to a better provider, you won't be paying any extra fees, but you will not recoup any fees your original provider charged. I'm not sure why you mention a Roth IRA. If you try to roll your 401(k) into a Roth instead of a traditional IRA or 401(k), be aware that you will be taxed on everything you roll. ---- Edit: a little info about IRA's in response to your comment ---- Tax advantaged retirement accounts come in two flavors: one is managed by your company and the money is taken out of your paycheck. This is usually a 401(k) or 403(b). You can contribute up to $18K per year and your company can also contribute to it. The other flavor is an IRA. You can contribute $5,500 per year to this for you and $5,500 for your spouse. These are outside of your company and you make the deposits yourself. You choose your own provider, so competition has driven prices way down. You can have both a 401(k) and an IRA and contribute the max to both (though at high incomes you lose the ability to deduct IRA contributions). These accounts are tax advantaged because you only pay taxes once. With a regular brokerage account, you pay income tax in the year in which you earn money, then you pay tax every year on dividends and any capital gains that have been realized by selling. There are two types of tax-advantaged accounts: Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k). You do not pay income tax on this money in the year you earn it, nor do you pay capital gains tax. Instead you pay tax only in the year in which you take the money out (in retirement). Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). You do pay income tax on money on this money in the year in which you earn it. But then you don't pay tax on any gains or withdrawals ever again. When you leave your job (and sometimes at other times) you can move your money out of a 401(k) into your IRA, where you can do a better job managing it. You can also move money from your IRA into a 401(k) if your 401(k) provider will allow you to. Whether traditional or Roth is better depends on your tax rate now and your tax rate at retirement. However, if you choose to move money from a traditional account into a Roth account, you must pay tax on it in that year as if it was income because traditional and Roth accounts are taxed at different times. For that reason, if you are just trying to move money out of your 401(k) to save on fees, the logical place to put it is in a traditional IRA. Moving money from a traditional to a Roth may make sense, for example, if your tax rate is temporarily low this year, but that would be a separate decision from the one you are looking at. You can always roll your traditional IRA into a Roth later if that does become the case. Otherwise, there's no reason to think your traditional 401(k) should be rolled into a Roth IRA according to what you have described.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45315a7f2e7a30b391efa8918d80a94a",
"text": "\"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are \"\"we\"\"? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the policy of our company. For example: \"\"Every two months profits get divided 50/50\"\" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean. Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ceefd9186fbe63a649c1b841cd61d71d",
"text": "It makes no difference for tax purposes. If you are 1099, you will pay the same amount of taxes as if you formed a corporation and then paid yourself (essentially you are doing this as a 1099 contractor, just not formally). Legally, I don't know the answer. I would assume you have some legal protections by forming an LLC but practically I think this won't make any difference if you get sued.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3536cc618e291ed7fa8cd499d035587",
"text": "I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fe39059905ec8dc96ad3b388e818b19",
"text": "\"The \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction is a red herring to this discussion and not at all important just because someone suggested you use your LLC to do the job. Corp-2-Corp is a very common way to do contracting and having an LLC with business bank accounts provides you with more tax deductions (such as deducting interest on credit lines). Some accounting practices prefer to pay entities by their Tax ID numbers, instead of an individual's social security number. The actual reasoning behind this would be dubious, but the LLC only benefits you and gives you more advantages by having one than not. For example, it is easier for you to hire subcontractors through your LLC to assist with your job, due to the opaqueness of the private entity. Similarly, your LLC can sign Non Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements, automatically extending the trade secrets to all of its members, as opposed to just you as an individual. By signing whatever agreement with the company that is paying you through your LLC, your LLC will be privy to all of this. Next, assuming you did have subcontractors or other liability inducing assets, the LLC limits the liability you personally have to deal with in a court system, to an extent. But even if you didn't, the facelessness of an LLC can deter potential creditors, for example, your client may just assume you are a cog in a wheel - a random employee of the LLC - as opposed to the sole owner. Having a business account for the LLC keeps all of your expenses in one account statement, making your tax deductions easier. If you had a business credit line, the interest is tax deductible (compared to just having a personal credit card for business purposes). Regarding the time/costs of setting up and managing an LLC, this does vary by jurisdiction. It can negligible, or it can be complex. You also only have to do it once. Hire an attorney to give you a head start on that, if you feel that is necessary. Now back to the \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction: It is true that the client will not be paying your social security, but they expect you to charge more hourly than an equivalent actual employee would, solely because you don't get health insurance from them or paid leave or retirement plans or any other perk, and you will receive the entire paycheck without any withheld by the employer. You also get more tax deductions to utilize, although you will now have self employment tax (assuming you are a US citizen), this becomes less and less important the higher over $105,000 you make, as it stops being counted (slightly more complicated than that, but self employment tax is it's own discussion).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7beb296a45b2f6718fda648042db802f",
"text": "\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \"\"on the books.\"\" [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \"\"the work will be the same either way\"\", I think: \"\"Here thar be dragons!\"\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \"\"on the books\"\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c82a3112b47f3aa1a05ff4c8b95a74bd",
"text": "\"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2. There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes. Problems occur, with the IRS, when one \"\"forgets\"\" to report income. Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income. However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations. For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C. Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill. Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension. This does come with some drawbacks, however. First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses. You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS. Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them. If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits. Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits. (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals. If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64ff7d85368c789defd8b35ea3d24c03",
"text": "\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95531953b169263ad599ef40a1d6aad4",
"text": "\"Yes, you can deduct up to your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) or your contribution limit, whichever is lower. Note that this reduces your taxable income, not your taxes. This is self-employment income, which is included as compensation for IRA purposes. You still have to pay self-employment taxes (Social Security and Medicare) though. You pay those before calculating AGI. So this won't entirely shield your 1099 income from taxes, just from income taxes. Note that if you have both W-2 and 1099-MISC income, you don't get to pick which gets \"\"shielded\"\" from taxes. It all gets mixed together in the same bucket. There may be additional limitations if you are covered by a retirement plan at work.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4a4af29e563aa15daf97b16eebf08a5",
"text": "It sounds like they want to enter you into a contract in which they are allowed to charge a flat fee for filing contingent on money saving results from a tax review service, paid in full. Like those who answered before I have no legal experience. IRS Circular 230 defines the ethics for tax practitioners and the definition of a tax practitioner is broad enough (effective Aug 2011) to include those who are not EAs, CTRPs, CPAs as long as the person is compensated to prepare or assist in a substantial part of the preparation of a document pertaining to a taxpayer's liability for submission to the IRS. Section 10.27 Fees: (b)(2)A practitioner may charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with the Service’s examination of, or challenge to — (i) An original tax return Paragraph c defines what a contingent fee is basically a fee that depends on the specific result attained, in this case saving you money. In the section above 'Service's examination' is an audit in plain speak. If your 2013 return has not been submitted and you have not received a written notice for examination, H&R block can not charge a contingent fee, period. Furthermore, H&R Block cannot hold your tax documents, upon your request, they must return all original tax documents like W2s and 1099s ( they don't have to return the tax forms an employee prepared). Like I said above, I'm not a lawyer, unless I missed a key detail, I don't believe they were permitted to charge you a filing fee contingent on saving you money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1406ad7d12bc3a17399d0be238045b5b",
"text": "I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15014a9abec8b2f5665cd75e5482fb1c",
"text": "\"Linkedlinked, You might want to seriously take another look at the links that Chris provided you. Specifically the ones on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html From the IRS website: Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another. The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination. Perhaps more importantly... pay attention to what happens if you're WRONG: Consequences of Treating an Employee as an Independent Contractor If you classify an employee as an independent contractor and you have no reasonable basis for doing so, you may be held liable for employment taxes for that worker (the relief provisions, discussed below, will not apply). See Internal Revenue Code section 3509 for more information. I would STRONGLY recommend that you and your partners give your accountant a call and discuss the matter. They will be able to help you make the right decision. One of biggest mistakes businesses make in this are is to classify their employees as independent contractors. The IRS (who happens to be hungry for money right now) comes in and says, \"\"Nooooooooo... those are employees.\"\" ...and the COMPANY gets to pay the employment taxes. I actually have person experience with this as I worked for a company this happened to. Every contractor was re-classified as an employee except for two (myself and one other). The key reason in that case was that none of the other contractors had any other clients. While I understand that you have other clients, I would still recommend talking to your accountant for an hour or so... just to be 100% sure. Sincerely, Andrew Smith TaxQueries.com\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
55377762c0c3699e3cd1d2c44117f186
|
How are derivatives different from bucket shops?
|
[
{
"docid": "1f61879cd5e304871fb2370501d01e5f",
"text": "\"How are derivatives like covered warrants or CFDs different from the bucket shops that were made illegal in the US? After reading up a little on the topic, the core difference seems to be that bucket shops were basically running betting pools, with everyone betting against the operator, whereas CFDs and similar derivatives are traded between speculators and the operator merely provides a market and checks the liquidity of participants. A CW seems to be a different matter that I'm not fully sure I understand (at least the description of Wikipedia seems to contradict your statement about not trade being performed on the underlying security). Should I worry that some regulator decides that my \"\"market maker\"\" is an illegal gambling operation? Not really. Nations with a mature financial industry (like Japan) invariably have heavy regulations that mandate constant auditing of institutions that sell financial instruments. In Japan, the Financial Services Agency is in charge of this. It's almost impossible that they would let an institution operate and later decide that its basic business model is illegal. What is possible are mainly two scenarios:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5ac2c3af189b17b4ca0fc70bdd2a88fc",
"text": "There are a few unsavory factors that have led to the creation of new derivatives:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e302b03f30b9eddbdda22282b45ba6e9",
"text": "Not directly an answer to your question, but somewhat related: There are derivatives (whose English name I sadly don't know) that allow to profit from breaking through an upper or alternatively a lower barrier. If the trade range does not hit either barrier you lose. This kind of derivative is useful if you expect a strong movement in either direction, which typically occurs at high volume.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4eb74f1ad8d70948bf51140b68a66f79",
"text": "Late to the party, but my finance professor put it in simplest terms: An example of a derivative is a credit default swap. An example of a credit default swap is that if you and your buddy bet on a football game that happens every year, and if the team you picked wins, you get paid by your friend, but you pay him if his team wins. The credit default swaps were a huge topic during 2008-2009 because people could bet on companies tanking, and also short their stock to help further the bad vibes.",
"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": "1bd71d2b21416caa623fa525043c3812",
"text": "That's not 100% correct, as some leveraged vehicles choose to re-balance on a monthly basis making them less risky (but still risky). If I'm not mistaken the former oil ETN 'DXO' was a monthly re-balance before it was shut down by the 'man' Monthly leveraged vehicles will still suffer slippage, not saying they won't. But instead of re-balancing 250 times per year, they do it 12 times. In my book less iterations equals less decay. Basically you'll bleed, just not as much. I'd only swing trade something like this in a retirement account where I'd be prohibited from trading options. Seems like you can get higher leverage with less risk trading options, plus if you traded LEAPS, you could choose to re-balance only once per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fb29846e10c9ff3c42e0d9cc33ab4a2",
"text": "\"For sake of simplicity, say the Euro is trading at $1.25. You have leveraged control of $100,000 given the 100x leverage. If you are bullish on the Euro, you are long 80,000 euros. For every 1% it rises, you gain $1000. If it drops by the same 1%, you are wiped out, you lost your $1000. With the contracts I am familiar with, there is a minimum margin, and your account is \"\"marked to market\"\" each night. If your positive balance drops too low, you get the margin call. It's a zero sum game, for every dollar you make, there's a guy on the other side of the trade. Odds are he's doing this full time and is smarter than you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9f4da035e090ae3d1bddb1e7939db2d",
"text": "The most obvious use of a collateral is as a risk buffer. Just as when you borrow money to buy a house and the bank uses the house as a collateral, so when people borrow money to loan financial instruments (or as is more accurate, gain leverage) the lender keeps a percentage of that (or an equivalent instrument) as a collateral. In the event that the borrower falls short of margin requirements, brokers (in most cases) have the right to sell that collateral and mitigate the risk. Derivatives contracts, like any other financial instrument, come with their risks. And depending on their nature they may sometimes be much more riskier than their underlying instruments. For example, while a common stock's main risk comes from the movements in its price (which may itself result from many other macro/micro-economic factors), an option in that common stock faces risks from those factors plus the volatility of the stock's price. To cover this risk, lenders apply much higher haircuts when lending against these derivatives. In many cases, depending upon the notional exposure of the derivative, that actual dollar amount of the collateral may be more than the face value or the market value of the derivatives contract. Usually, this collateral is deposited not as the derivatives contract itself but rather as the underlying financial instrument (an equity in case of an option, a bond in case of a CDS, and so on). This allows the lender to offset the risk by executing a trade on that collateral itself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b354cfcaa22f3ae30140295627b99872",
"text": "The point of derivatives is to get rid of the risk you don't want so you can acquire exposure only to the risk you want. Who wants weather/temperature risk -- speculators. Who doesn't want that risk? Anyone who's core business is adversely affected by bad weather. It's the same reason multinational firms will hedge FX and interest rates. All a speculator is typically doing is taking the other side of the trade based on what they feel is the true price of the risk they are assuming",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "353d65b75f8959bb74ae5e2ffac63567",
"text": "Good comparable. Interest Rate Swap very often also come at a charge i.e. the hedging counterparty typically charges you a 'credit' and 'execution' charge ontop of what you pay them (fixed rate). This means that the Mafia-like Bully is going to keep some money in his own pocket for dealing with the 'variable' bully and overall he will take a bit of a profit from this deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8586796e8d64cc6ebeb5ef6bc6cc0f27",
"text": "Yes and no, P2P Capital Markets is similar concept but is more geared towards business loans. Community Lend used to offer this service but has stopped.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45cbcf10b47b32e2b056d6a91b002f71",
"text": "\"This question was asked over at wilmott.com which is a site for quantitative analysts. Some of the finest minds in the business (I am serious here) pondered the question. the best answer was along the lines of: \"\"A Gambler generally gambles their own money, a derivatives trader gambles using someone else's\"\". There is an important legal difference is that a gambling dept is normally considered a \"\"debt of honor\"\", that is not enforceable in a court of law whilst a derivatives contract is considered legally binding. This last bit gets a bit interesting under some jurisdictions because only derivatives contracts involving the delivery of something physical are enforceable, whilst contracts involving settlement with financial instruments are not, so a stock index future would not be recognized.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7f2391e31ce498b64165c6829fe0da9",
"text": "\"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \"\"margin call\"\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\"",
"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": "2c2d1281b1decc81fdfe20f21d115175",
"text": "There can also be too little liquidity to actually make it worthwhile. That's probably the most important difference. Also, it's easy to get banned if they realise your are doing it on a significant scale (at least that's how it is in the UK).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f22a5ecc1faa262af808f77c33ca5d5",
"text": "Well, let me take your question for baremetal, and aknowledge you did not asked about the difference between daytrading and investing which is obviously leverage. I would not consider daytrading more risky as long as you keep leverageout of the equation. Daytrading can be turbolent and confusing, where things unfold in a very short amount of time, (let trade nfp payroll or some breaking event, yay), eventually the risk is more overseeable in long term trading, as soon as you put leverage into the equation things look vary different, indeed.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bc36dbe1107fee2dc8194bab9b4a2cc7
|
Can one be non-resident alien in the US without being a resident anywhere else?
|
[
{
"docid": "866b5c9cc2f9d0044adca9577f629247",
"text": "\"You'll need to read carefully the German laws on tax residency, in many European (and other) tax laws the loss of residency due to absence is conditioned on acquiring residency elsewhere. But in general, it is possible to use treaties and statuses so that you end up not being resident anywhere, but it doesn't mean that the income is no longer taxed. Generally every country taxes income sourced to it unless an exclusion applies, so if you can no longer apply the treaty due to not being a resident - you'll need to look for general exclusions in the tax law. I don't know how Germany taxes scholarships under the general rules, you'll have to check it. It is possible that they're not taxed. Many people try to raise the argument of \"\"I'm not a resident\"\" to avoid income taxes altogether on earnings on their work - this would not work. But with a special kind of income like scholarship, which may be exempt under the law, it may. Keep in mind, that the treaty has \"\"who is or was immediately before visiting a Contracting State a resident of the other Contracting State\"\" language in some relevant cases, so you may still apply it in the US even if no longer resident in Germany.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7eac2e73f8d413f7e41d518f1fd205ce",
"text": "\"You may be considered a resident for tax purposes. To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least: 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count: All of the days you were present in the current year, and One-third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and One-sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. If you are exempt, I'd check that ending your residence in Germany doesn't violate terms of the visa, in which case you'd lose your exempt status. If you are certain that you can maintain your exempt status, then the income would definitively not be taxed by the US as it is not effectively connected income: You are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States if you are temporarily present in the United States as a nonimmigrant on an \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" visa. The taxable part of any U.S. source scholarship or fellowship grant received by a nonimmigrant in \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" status is treated as effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. and your scholarship is sourced from outside the US: Generally, the source of scholarships, fellowship grants, grants, prizes, and awards is the residence of the payer regardless of who actually disburses the funds. I would look into this from a German perspective. If they have a rule similiar to the US for scholarships, then you will still be counted as a resident there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7361debbd3f6c67a4ca4122071f829bd",
"text": "If you aren't a US National (citizen or Green Card holder or some other exception I know not of), you're an alien, no matter where else you may or may not be a citizen. If you don't meet the residency tests, you're nonresident. Simple as that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a96857cf8f4229f9687b18538caa3dcc",
"text": "\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \"\"Dual\"\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5d2001ca58f759753d9a18ad721d99a",
"text": "So it voids what you claim. And hardly anyone renounces their citizenship. Something tells me the government won't allow apple to pack up and move to Europe seeing as large companies have to get permission to buy or merge with other companies. And I don't think the executives would enjoy flying to Europe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a10abd935ad3dad849df2ac17dd7683c",
"text": "J-1 students are considered to be nonresidents for taxation purposes during their first five years of presence in the US. J-1 scholars are considered to be non-residents for taxation purposes during their first two years of presence in the US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fe18102ce6074e8a9ef7c05c72fd46a",
"text": "One can expatriate and (depending on where you go) get some protections from the debt following you. Some DACA dreamers are finding this option a best choice given the current political environment. But, this is obviously an extreme measure :(",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c159c05d0ec801c60acb224e0deb4cd",
"text": "Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47c9c8dbbbfb64b9537ec5a36e9cc724",
"text": "\"What theyre fishing for is whether the money was earned in the U.S. It's essentially an interest shelter, and/or avoiding double taxation. They're saying if you keep income you make outside the US in a bank inside the US, the US thanks you for storing your foreign money here and doesn't tax the interest (but the nation where you earned that income might). There is no question that the AirBNB income is \"\"connected with a US trade or business\"\". So your next question is whether the fraction of interest earned from that income can be broken out, or whether IRS requires you to declare all the interest from that account. Honestly given the amount of tax at stake, it may not be worth your time researching. Now since you seem to be a resident nonresident alien, it seems apparent that whatever economic value you are creating to earn your salary, is being performed in the United States. If this is for an American company and wages paid in USD, no question, that's a US trade or business. But what if it's for a Swedish company running on Swedish servers, serving Swedes and paid in Kroner to a Swedish bank which you then transfer to your US bank? Does it matter if your boots are on sovereign US soil? This is a complex question, and some countries (UK) say \"\"if your boots are in our nation, it is trade/income in our nation\"\"... Others (CA) do not. This is probably a separate question to search or ask. To be clear, the fact that your days as a teacher or trainee do not count toward residency, is a separate question from whether your salary as same counts as US income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af46f9f222b03afc70c4c684572cf355",
"text": "\"For Non-Resident filers, New York taxes New York-sourced income. That includes: real or tangible personal property located in New York State (including certain gains or losses from the sale or exchange of an interest in an entity that owns real property in New York State); services performed in New York State; a business, trade, profession, or occupation carried on in New York State; and a New York S corporation in which you are a shareholder (including installment income from an IRC 453 transaction). There are some exclusions as well. It is all covered in the instructions to form IT-203. However, keep in mind that \"\"filing\"\" as non-resident doesn't make you non-resident. If you spend 184 days or more in New York State, and you have a place to stay there - you are resident. See definitions here. Even if you don't actually live there and consider yourself a CT resident.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdaa9357ed56946285502c482afc57ff",
"text": "\"You can renounce it whenever you like, however you can't be living within that country and under the umbrella that the country provides otherwise someone is going to say \"\"you might claim that you are not a citizen, but your actions and physical residence would claim otherwise\"\"...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5b36ee16e54742a4a8f7e8096c1ce38",
"text": "Per the IRS instructions on filing as Head of Household as a Citizen Living Abroad, if you choose to file only your own taxes, and you qualify for Head of Household without them, the IRS does not consider you married: If you are a U.S. citizen married to a nonresident alien you may qualify to use the head of household tax rates. You are considered unmarried for head of household purposes if your spouse was a nonresident alien at any time during the year and you do not choose to treat your nonresident spouse as a resident alien. However, your spouse is not a qualifying person for head of household purposes. You must have another qualifying person and meet the other tests to be eligible to file as a head of household. As such, you could file as Married Filing Separately (if you have no children) or Head of Household (if you have one or more children, a parent, etc. for whom you paid more than half of their upkeep - see the document for more information). You also may choose to file as Married Filing Jointly, if it benefits you to do so (it may, if she earns much less than you). See the IRS document Nonresident Spouse Treated As Resident for more information. If you choose to treat her as a resident, then you must declare her worldwide income. In some circumstances this will be beneficial for you, if you earn substantially more than her and it lowers your tax rate overall to do so. Married Filing Separately severely limits your ability to take some deductions and credits, so it's well worth seeing which is better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ac1ef68844fd59f82aecc6714a8914b",
"text": "As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "943bdfb9bd4b87b033901c6b9f9b209a",
"text": "You can do that, you aren't missing anything. It is supposed to be punishment, but as you are moving to a European country your non-penalized income would likely be taxed higher as is. I don't have info on whether you will be taxed a second time by the European country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "607ac353971dc2f4e1bb2743d5e7be59",
"text": "\"It depends on how long you stay and where you earn your income. You can be a US resident for tax purposes even if you are not for immigration purposes. The \"\"substantive presence test\"\" probably applies to you: You will be considered a United States resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States (U.S.) on at least: https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Substantial-Presence-Test There are some exceptions to this test, and tax treaties may also apply. See IRS Publication 519 for more information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94c39b345a0eb3878d903cb081e28da2",
"text": "Are you planning to not pay taxes? Any time someone has income in the U.S., it is subject to U.S. taxes. You must file tax returns (and pay taxes if necessary) if you have income above a certain threshold, regardless of whether you're not authorized to work or not. If you plan to intentionally not pay taxes, then that's a whole other matter from working without authorization. Working without authorization is an immigration issue. It probably violates the conditions of your status, which will make you to automatically lose your status. That may or may not affect when you want to want to visit, immigrate to, or get other immigration benefits in the U.S. in the future; and at worst you may be deported. It's a complicated topic, but not really relevant for this site.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "194322872a65caaa165d753c9086df52",
"text": "\"You are considered a Canadian resident if you have \"\"significant residential ties to Canada\"\". Because your wife lives in Canada, you therefore are a resident. Even by working temporarily in the US, you are still considered a \"\"factual resident\"\" of Canada. Due to that, your second question is irrelevant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d2de7f5015216cc451c67d2790bf0a9",
"text": "No, there's nothing special in mutual funds or ETFs. Wash sale rules apply to any asset.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
09cf12baf1cbef83e3cc515ecc031a51
|
Unusual real estate market with seemingly huge rental returns
|
[
{
"docid": "0abf18cc25a8320ef87516be5b2300af",
"text": "I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business. As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too! Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c83e47cb9631f83ce924a41ea510ae86",
"text": "\"You are suggesting that a 1% return per month is huge. There are those who suggest that one should assume (a rule of thumb here) that you should assume expenses of half the rent. 6% per year in this case. With a mortgage cost of 4.5% on a rental, you have a forecast profit of 1.5%/yr. that's $4500 on a $300K house. If you buy 20 of these, you'll have a decent income, and a frequently ringing phone. There's no free lunch, rental property can be a full time business. And very lucrative, but it's rarely a slam dunk. In response to OP's comment - First, while I do claim to know finance fairly well, I don't consider myself at 'expert' level when it comes to real estate. In the US, the ratio varies quite a bit from area to area. The 1% (rent) you observe may turn out to be great. Actual repair costs low, long term tenants, rising home prices, etc. Improve the 1.5%/yr to 2% on the 20% down, and you have a 10% return, ignoring appreciation and principal paydown. And this example of leverage is how investors seem to get such high returns. The flip side is bad luck with tenants. An eviction can mean no rent for a few months, and damage that needs fixing. A house has a number of long term replacement costs that good numbers often ignore. Roof, exterior painting, all appliances, heat, AC, etc. That's how that \"\"50% of rent to costs\"\" rule comes into play.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a82c6d4a4abb65fa340f040f9786e70",
"text": "\"The way to resolve your dilemma is to consult the price-to-rent ratio of the property. According to smartasset.com: The price-to-rent ratio is a measure of the relative affordability of renting and buying in a given housing market. It is calculated as the ratio of home prices to annual rental rates. So, for example, in a real estate market where, on average, a home worth $200,000 could rent for $1000 a month, the price-rent ratio is 16.67. That’s determined using the formula: $200,000 ÷ (12 x $1,000). Smartasset.com also goes on to give a table comparing different cities' price-to-rent ratio and then claim that the average price-to-rent ratio is currently 19.21. If your price-to-rent ratio is lower than 19.21, then, yes, your rents are more expensive than the average house. Smartasset.com claims that a high price-to-rent ratio is an argument in favor of tenants \"\"renting\"\" properties while a low price-to-rent ratio favors people \"\"buying\"\" (either to live in the property or to just rent it out to other people). So let's apply the price-to-rent ratio formula towards the properties you just quoted. There's a specific house I could buy for 190 (perhaps even less) that rents for exactly 2000 / month. 190K/(2000 * 12) = 7.92 There's a house for sale asking 400 (been on the market 2 yrs! could probably get for 350) which rents for 2800 /month. (400K)/(2800*12) = 11.90 (350K)/(2800*12) = 10.42 One can quite easily today buy a house for 180k-270k that would rent out for 1700-2100 / month. Lower Bound: (180K)/(1700*12) = 8.82 Upper Bound: (270K)/(2100*12) = 10.71 Even so, the rental returns here seem \"\"ridiculously high\"\" to me based on other markets I've noticed. Considering how the average price-to-rent ratio is 19.21, and your price-to-rent ratio ranges from 7.92 to 11.90, you are indeed correct. They are indeed \"\"ridiculously high\"\". Qualification: I was involved in real estate, and used the price-to-rent ratio to determine how long it would take to \"\"recover\"\" a person's investment in the property. Keep in mind that it's not the only thing I care about, and obviously the price-to-rent ratio tends to downplay expenses involved in actually owning properties and trying to deal with periods of vacancy. There's also the problem of taking into account demand as well. According to smartasset.com, Detroit, MI has the lowest price-to-rent ratio (with 6.27), which should suggest that people should buy properties immediately in this city. But that's probably more of a sign of people not wanting to move to Detroit and bid up the prices of properties. EDIT: I should also say that just because the properties are \"\"ridiculously expensive\"\" right now doesn't mean you should expect your rents to decrease. Rather, if rents keep staying at their current level, I'd predict that the property values will slowly increase in the future, thereby raising the price-to-rent ratio to 'non-ridiculous' mode.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9e2514f7b41ead8b0f37d702fcf7fbd2",
"text": "well yes but you should also begin to understand the sectoral component of real estate as a market too in that there can be commercial property; industrial property and retail property; each of which is capable of having slightly (tho usually similar of course) different returns, yields, and risks. Whereas you are saving to buy and enter into the residential property market which is different again and valuation principles are often out of kilter here because Buying a home although exposing your asset base to real estate risk isnt usually considered an investment as it is often made on emotional grounds not strict investment criteria.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efce77f31deaafbffcf362e30aea9e0d",
"text": "\"VNQ only holds ~16% residential REITs. The rest are industrial, office, retail (e.g. shopping malls), specialized (hotels perhaps?) etc. Thus, VNQ isn't as correlated towards housing as you might have assumed just based on it being about \"\"real estate.\"\" Second of all, if by \"\"housing\"\" you mean that actual houses have gone up appreciably, then you ought to realize that residential REITs seldom hold actual houses. The residential units held tend primarily to be rental apartments. There is a relationship in prices, but not direct.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2e7abc621b9eba9919bdc8626302fdf",
"text": "The Motley Fool suggested a good rule of thumb in one of their articles that may be able to help you determine if the market is overheating. Determine the entire cost of rent for a piece of property. So if rent is $300/month, total cost over a year is $3600. Compare that to the cost of buying a similar piece of property by dividing the property price by the rent per year. So if a similar property is $90,000, the ratio would be $90,000/$3600 = 25. If the ratio is < 20, you should consider buying a place. If its > 20, there's a good chance that the market is overheated. This method is clearly not foolproof, but it helps quantify the irrationality of some individuals who think that buying a place is always better than renting. P.S. if anyone can find this article for me I'd greatly appreciate it, I've tried to use my google-fu with googling terms with site:fool.com but haven't found the article I remember.",
"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": "ae2d662a10d85a9e6d215c22938140c8",
"text": "People purchase homes and rent them instead of putting their money into other investment vehicles. This drives up property values and makes it more expensive to buy, which pushes more people into the rental market, making it more expensive to rent. If you lower the returns people make on their rental homes via increased property taxes, some percentage of those individuals would sell their extra homes and put their money into more lucrative investments. That would increase the number of homes on the market, lower those homes' price, and take people out of the rental market as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b7d23687bafa717ab7d3b0d3fbd139e",
"text": "Even after the real estate crash, there are banks that lend money outside of the rules I'll share. A fully qualified mortgage is typically run at debt to income ratios of 28/36, where 28% of your gross monthly income can apply to the mortgage, property tax, and insurance, and the 36% is the total monthly debt (including the mortgage, etc) plus car loan student loan, etc. It's less about the total loan on the potential than about these ratios. The bank may allow for 75% of monthly rent so until rentals are running at a profit, they may seem a loss, even while just breaking even. This is just an overview, each bank may vary a bit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ff23e2d2bb06bd8523ff154e314517d",
"text": "\"I do not believe there is a strong correlation between CPI (Consumer Price Index) and housing value appreciation. Take, for example, New York City which has the highest CPI in the US. A great deal of the CPI number is skewed by Manhattan. One can live in Brooklyn or Queens and avoid some of NYC's high CPI. I would say that housing appreciation occurs because of the human activity in the area. That same human activity is what drives the CPI. There are other contributing factors, like limits on economies of scale. You simply cannot set down a Super Walmart in much of NYC, so goods are distributed over a larger number of stores. (Sure, NYC is a port city, but the goods are distributed within the city by trucks.) The San Francisco Bay Area is another high CPI area in the US. Here, as well, it is the location that draws people. While NYC is mostly about economic activity, the SF Bay Area is a mix of the draw of a great location and the economic activity that occurs due to the large number of people living there. I know of a house in Oakland that sold for approximately $350k, in 2004/05. It was located not too far from the \"\"Killing Fields,\"\" as they were known locally. It was not the worst neighborhood in Oakland, but it was not very far from it. This was for a shabby, single-story unit which I believe had 5 (maybe 6) rooms. That is a lot of money for a house that required a lot of attention and was in a bad neighborhood. I have no idea how the housing market is after the housing bubble, but the higher value areas had the most room to fall and many of them fell hard. Ultimately, it is supply and demand that determines the CPI and housing values. This supply and demand is determined by the human activity in the area and some practical considerations regarding the area. A final note: If we are talking about a primary residence, it should not necessarily be looked at as an investment. First and foremost, it is a necessity. Second, if you need to hire people for the maintenance and/or upgrades, that will eat into your gains. Contractors are not cheap, especially where they are in high demand. Finally, the tax incentive is actually not that great. Sure, you take what you can get, but its impact is relatively marginal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf50c055b7f7ddb663a5590ce31ba4b3",
"text": "Be very careful about buying property because it has been going up quickly in recent years. There are some fundamental factors that limit the amount real-estate can appreciate over time. In a nutshell, the general real-estate market growth is supported by the entry-level property market. That is, when values are appreciating, people can sell and use the capital gains to buy more valuable property. This drives up the prices in higher value properties whose owners can use that to purchase more expensive properties and so on and so forth. At some point in a rising market, the entry-level properties start to become hard for entry-level buyers to afford. The machine of rising prices throughout the market starts grinding to a halt. This price-level can be calculated by looking at average incomes in an area. At some percentage of income, people cannot buy into the market without crazy loans and if those become popular, watch out because things can get really ugly. If you want an example, just look back to the US in 2007-2009 and the nearly apocalyptic financial crisis that ensued. As with most investing, you want to buy low and sell high. Buying into a hot market is generally not very profitable. Buying when the market is abnormally low tends to be a more effective strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cb8d2713786a67c691618f992ccd148",
"text": "The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0fb0f259f6db8aa6b8266fa488b95eb",
"text": "When purchasing a condo in a university town, it is almost guaranteed that the prices will be inflated as a result. This is because you are competing not only with single-home, primary residence homeowners, but also with a multitude of investment buyers and landlords who want to purchase a rental property. Universities are popular rental markets due to their stability (there will always be students looking for a place to live), and as a result the areas attract investors more than other markets. This can work in your favor, however. If you don't mind sharing your residence with other students, and you don't mind the part time work that being a landlord requires, you can live much cheaper and even make money over the next few years as your roommates pay your bills. Owning a primary residence rental property also brings a lot of tax benefits because you can claim expenses and depreciation against your income. This could benefit your father who could be a co-owner and would certainly benefit from the write-offs against his higher tax bracket. The real trick that makes or breaks the experience is finding mature, responsible roommates who will cause the minimum amount of headache. If this part of the equation is missing, it can lead to distractions from school and even legal worries when you have to think about things like unpaid rent and/or evictions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec9961d911a037f952f77576264d16a0",
"text": "The idea you present is not uncommon, many have tried it before. It would be a great step to find landlords in your area and talk to them about lessons learned. It might cost you a lunch or cup of coffee but it could be the best investment you make. rent it out for a small profit (hopefully make around 3 - 5k a year in profit) Given the median price of a home is ~220K, and you are investing 44K, you are looking to make between a 6 and 11% profit. I would not classify this as small in the current interest rate environment. One aspect you are overlooking is risk. What happens if a furnace breaks, or someone does not pay their rent? While some may advocate borrowing money to buy rental real estate all reasonable advisers advocate having sufficient reserves to cover emergencies. Keep in mind that 33% of homes in the US do not have a mortgage and some investment experts advocate only buying rentals with cash. Currently owning rental property is a really good deal for the owners for a variety of reasons. Markets are cyclical and I bet things will not be as attractive in 10 years or so. Keep in mind you are borrowing ~220K or whatever you intend to pay. You are on the hook for that. A bank may not lend you the money, and even if they do a couple of false steps could leave you in a deep hole. That should at least give you pause. All that being said, I really like your gumption. I like your desire and perhaps you should set a goal of owning your first rental property for 5 years from now. In the mean time study and become educated in the business. Perhaps get your real estate license. Perhaps go to work for a property management company to learn the ins and outs of their business. I would do this even if I had a better paying full time job.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "122d68290fbabfe0f17c8406271bf9f1",
"text": "Based on what you've said I think buying a rental is risky for you. It looks like you heard that renting a house is profitable and Zillow supported that idea. Vague advice + a website designed for selling + large amounts of money = risky at the very least. That doesn't mean that rental property is super risky it just means that you haven't invested any time into learning the risks and how you can manage them. Once you learn that your risk reduces dramatically. In general though I feel that rental property has a good risk/reward ratio. If you're willing to put in the time and energy to learn the business then I'd encourage you to buy property. If you're not willing to do that then rentals will always be a crap shoot. One thing about investing in rental property is you have the ability to have more impact on your investment than you do dropping money in the stock market which is good and bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04d4827d726ea7bf03eb32ae11d2012b",
"text": "Typically in a developed / developing economy if there is high overall inflation, then it means everything will rise including property/real estate. The cost of funds is low [too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation] which means more companies borrow money cheaply and more business florish and hence the stock market should also go up. So if you are looking at a situation where industry is doing badly and the inflation is high, then it means there are larger issues. The best bet would be Gold and parking the funds into other currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c548c8f369622eaa6e0093a5f0b5d4ea",
"text": "\"There has been almost no inflation during 2014-2015. do you mean rental price inflation or overall inflation? Housing price and by extension rental price inflation is usually much higher than the \"\"basket of goods\"\" CPI or RPI numbers. The low levels of these two indicators are mostly caused by technology, oil and food price deflation (at least in the US, UK, and Europe) outweighing other inflation. My slightly biased (I've just moved to a new rental property) and entirely London-centric empirical evidence suggests that 5% is quite a low figure for house price inflation and therefore also rental inflation. Your landlord will also try to get as much for the property as he can so look around for similar properties and work out what a market rate might be (within tolerances of course) and negotiate based on that. For the new asked price I could get a similar apartment in similar condos with gym and pool (this one doesn't have anything) or in a way better area (closer to supermarkets, restaurants, etc). suggests that you have already started on this and that the landlord is trying to artificially inflate rents. If you can afford the extra 5% and these similar but better appointed places are at that price why not move? It sounds like the reason that you are looking to stay on in this apartment is either familiarity or loyalty to the landlord so it may be time to benefit from a move.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6830b4a00a77d74e8a72476ae00b7c",
"text": "Narratively from the POV of the landlord, the hip retailer ABC offered me a 10 year lease at $1000/month for an empty store front on an empty block. I agreed. ABC attracted a large youth market, so other stores filled in the rest of the block in the intervening decade, which I leased for 1200, 1500, 2000, and finally 4000 per month since the foot traffic and demographic is so strong. It's now year 9. Next year, the lease will likely jump up to the comparable 4000 per square foot. Their margin in this location probably looks great today. But the purpose of the quote is to warn you to check the future.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
62d88b4d5f25e7f831d8b988b9c36312
|
Monthly money transfers from US to Puerto Rico
|
[
{
"docid": "18397334430909aee08a750b1b380c31",
"text": "Puerto Rico: Last I checked, the Puerto Rico banking system wasn't materially different than working within the US - though some Continental US banks exclude US Territories like Guam and Puerto Rico or charge more when dealing with them. I'm not certain as to why. However, most banks don't see them any differently than a regular US bank. Regarding Wire Transfers (WT): $35 for an ad-hoc WT within the US and Puerto Rico is for the most part average. Wires cost money for the convenience of quick clearing and guaranteed funds. If you have a business/commercial account where you are doing this regularly and paying a monthly fee for a WT service, $10 - $15 each may be expected. I had a business account with US Bank where I paid $15 a month for a WT transfer service and reoccurring template (always went to the same account - AMEX in this case) and the transfers were only $15 each. But, a WT as a general rule, especially when it's only a once a month thing from a personal account, will cost around $25 - $35 in the US and Puerto Rico. As others have said, you can simply mail a personal check just as you would in the US. Many people choose to use Money Orders for Puerto Rico as they can be cashed at the post office (I believe there is an amount limit though). ACH: If you want even easier, I would use ACH. Banks in Puerto Rico use this ACH (Automatic Clearing House) system as we do in the Continental US. It will take a little longer than WT, but as you said - this is fine. Not all US Banks offer free ACH, but a number of them do. Last I checked, Citibank and USAA where among them. Banks like, BAC charges a small fee. Much smaller than a WT! This post may be useful to you: What's the difference between wire transfer and ACH?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6bc9f64574af2062c1c3525e86aac0e1",
"text": "Typically your statement will break down each of the balances that carry a different rate, so you'll see them lumped into the 0% line, or two separates lines with different rates for each. If you don't see it on the statement, a quick call to your bank should clarify it for you. If I had to guess, I would lean towards the fee likely being at 0% also, but if it isn't, typically you would pay the minimum + $350 on your next statement. (Because only amounts over the minimum go towards principal of the highest rates first, at least this is true in the US for personal accounts.) Of course this is something your bank should be able to clarify as well. Balance Transfer Tip: I always recommend setting up automatic payments when you take advantage of a balance transfer offer. The reason is, oftentimes buried deeply in the terms and conditions, is an evil phrase which says that if you miss a payment, they have the right to revoke the promotional rate and start charging you a higher rate. That would be bad enough if it happened, but to make things worse I believe the fee you paid for the transfer is not returned to you. So, set up an auto payment each month for at least the minimum payment. And if you can afford it, divide the total transferred by the number of months and pay that amount each month. (Assuming you don't pay interest on the fee: $17,500 * 1.02 / 18 = $991.67/per month.) That way you'll have it paid off just in time to not have any higher interest when the promotional rate expires. If you don't know if you can afford the higher amount each month, set it to the max you know for sure you can afford, and make additional payments whenever you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af",
"text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88c461ef9c397b80086de1ac45b49a68",
"text": "I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but in general its pretty simple: She goes to the UK bank and requests a wire transfer, providing your details as a recipient. You then go to your bank, fill the necessary forms for the money-laundaring regulations, you probably also need to pay the taxes on the money to the IRS, and then you have it. If you have 1 million dollars (or is it pounds?), I'm sure you can afford spending several hundreds for a tax attorney to make sure your liabilities are reduced to minimum.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45b38491d157c18dffa4205923def3d9",
"text": "I may be moving to Switzerland soon and would like to know if there's a similar system to move money between a Swiss bank account and a U.S bank account. There is no easy way. The most common method is International Wire or SWIFT. These kinds of transfer are generally charged in the range of USD 20 to USD 50 per transfer. It generally takes 2 to 5 days to move the money. Some Banks have not yet given the facility to initiate a International Wire from Internet banking platforms. One has to physically walk-in. So if this is going to be frequent, make sure both your banks offer this. As the volume between US and Switzerland is less, there may not be any dedicated remittance service providers [these are generally low cost].",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc60c2be7f14a3235c87dbae4b1b69fd",
"text": "Transferwise gives an excellent exchange rate and very minimal costs. They save on costs by not actually changing any money; your money goes to someone else in the US, and the Canadia dollars you want come from someone else in Canada. No money changes currency or crosses borders, there is no bank transfer fee (assuming that domestic bank transfers, inside the country, are free), and they give an excellent exchange rate (very nearly the spot rate, I find; far better than many rates I find online for sending money across the border). I sent money from the UK to Japan with it last week, at a fixed fee of about three US dollars (I was charged in GBP, obviously). About one tenth the cost of an international bank transfer. I just double-checked; at about midday on the fifth of October 2016, they gave me a rate of 130.15 JPY per 1 GBP, and then charged me two GBP to transfer the money. The rate that day, according to xe.com, varied between 130.7 and 132 ; basically, I don't think I could have got a better deal pretty much anywhere. As I type, this very second, they offer 1.33 CAD for 1 USD , and google tells me that this very second, the exchange rate is 1.33 CAD for 1 USD - transferwise is giving the spot price. I don't think you'll get a better rate anywhere else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7851f4eb8431440619c6ffb3774188f0",
"text": "\"As soon as I see the word \"\"friends\"\" along with money transfer I think scam. But ignoring that red flag.... You will have American companies reporting to the IRS that you are a Canadian Vendor they have hired. Then you are transferring money to people in Bangladesh. Assuming also that you fill out all the regulatory paperwork to establish this Money transfer business you may still face annual reporting requirements to 3 national taxing authorities. In the United states there are situations where the US Government hires a large company to complete a project. As part of that contract they require the large company to hire small businesses to complete some of the tasks. In a situation where the large company is imply serving as a conduit for the money between the government and the sub-contractor; and the large company has no other responsibilities; the usual fee for providing that function is 8% of the funds. This pays for their expenses for their accounting functions plus profit and the taxes that will trigger. Yet you said \"\"At the end of the day, I will not earn much, but the transactions will just burden my tax returns.\"\" The 8 percent fee doesn't include doesn't include having to file paperwork with 3 nations. Adding this to all the other risks associated with being an international bank, plus the legal costs of making sure you are following all the regulations...No thanks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95027669f9c35e4703223ae15a60e31e",
"text": "A quick search shows that https://www.westernunion.com/de/en/send-money/start.html says they will transfer €5,000 for a cost of €2.90. Assuming you can do a transfer every week, that would be six weeks at a cost of €17.40. €17.40 is slightly less than €1,500.00. I'm sure there are more ways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d87e11efcd1821a28428fdb83e5d531",
"text": "Most US banks allow to initiate wire transfers online. (I do it regularly with BoA and JPMorgan-Chase) Once you have your account details in Germany, you log on to your US account, set it up, and initiate the transfer; that should go through within one day. The exchange ratio is better than anything you would get buying/selling currency (paper cash money), no matter where you do it. Chase takes a fee of 40$ per online transaction; BoA 45$. The receiving bank might or might not take additional fees, they should be lower though (I have experienced between 0€ and 0.35%). Therefore, it is a good idea to bundle your transfers into one, if you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08248f5214e8b3782b0d58a4351d7af1",
"text": "He cannot get money from someone else account. Your US resident friend in New York can send money to your Indian friend in Atlanta via Western Union which has presence in almost every corner of the US. Most definitely in the city of Atlanta. Your Indian friend can receive the Western Union transfer, in cash, within minutes after the friend in New York sends it. Here's the site for location search. The sender doesn't need to go anywhere, can send online, so your New York friend doesn't even need to waste much time. In fact - you don't need to bother your friend in New York, you can send it online yourself (assuming you're American/have US bank account). In order to receive the money, your Indian friend will obviously need a proper identification (i.e.: passport).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f",
"text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1105d0dfbec07b6b30ea37e35393157",
"text": "HSBC exchange spread between HKD and USD was 483 bps (1 bps is 0.0001) on their 24 hours exchange network a few weeks ago when I checked. It is very high for a pair of linked currencies which has very little fluctuation. One should expect less than 5 bps or even 1 bps. I did my currency conversion at a US brokerage which can take HKD currency and then I was able to pick the time/rate and amount I like to make the conversion. Basically, the currency pair runs within a tight band and you just need to buy USD with HKD at the time when it is near the edge of the band to your advantage. There is usually no fee on currency conversion. They make money through the spread. HSBC premier allows you to wire free among countries. I forget whether they offer tighter spread or not. Rob was right on about the cost of transferring money overseas. The majority of the cost is in the conversion, not the wiring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c295f6219f707bffbc845d07fe07b2d1",
"text": "I few years ago my company in the Washington DC area allowed employees to contribute their own pre-tax funds. The system at the time wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent what you are suggesting. The money each month was put on a special credit card that could only be used at certain types of locations. You could load it onto the Metro smart trip card, and use it for many months. Many people did this, even though the IRS says you shouldn't. But eventually the program for the federal employees changed, their employer provided funds were put directly onto their Smart Trip card. In fact there were two buckets on the card: one to pay for commuting, and the other to pay for parking. There was no way to transfer money between buckets. The first day of the new month all the excess funds were automatically removed from the card;and the new funds were put onto the card. If your employer has a similar program it may work the same way. HR will know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec9bbffb3de74756544e9883b0955746",
"text": "Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c9acdcbf56c5fe87270584861c27edb",
"text": "After collecting information via web searching, the comments above, and a additional call to BOA, i have concluded the following to the best of my knowledge. Zelle Transfers are final. Irreversible. As Jay mentioned above, funds are subtracted from the sending account before the transfer is made, therefore it eliminates sending funds that do not exist. I validated this information with BOA, and the BOA representative said that once a zelle transfer is initiated and the receiving party has received the funds, it can no longer be canceled. Funds received by the receiving party is credited immediately. I will note that the BOA representative was a BOA representative and not a Zelle representative. I say this because the representatives seemed to be slightly weary in answering my questions about Zelle, as if he was looking up the information as we spoke. If someone is reading this and plans to transfer huge amount of cash from a highly likely malicious user, i would recommend contacting Zelle or your personal bank directly to further validate this information. Zelle, from what i can find, is a fairly new technology. I could not find a Zelle contact number via the web for questioning, so i can only rely on the knowledge on my BOA representative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "536ea8d6b0e4f7dd151fac547fee08e0",
"text": "TL;DR for those who don't want to waste their time: Uber didn't do anything special. Also, you should follow unethical laws and not try to change or challenge the system. While I was reading the piece I thought it was the work of a sophomore, but it turns out this was written by a professor.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
11756ffc015e413de9a51127e39c7fd0
|
401(k) lump sum distribution limited because of highly compensated employees?
|
[
{
"docid": "ec21364d60e47dc92323262e60451433",
"text": "It's legal. In fact, they are required to do this, assuming you are in fact a HCE (highly compensated employee) to avoid getting in trouble with the IRS. I'm guessing they don't provide documentation for the same reason they don't explain to you explicitly what the income thresholds are for social security taxes, etc - that's a job for your personal accountant. Here's the definition of a HCE: An individual who: Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during the year or the preceding year, regardless of how much compensation that person earned or received, or For the preceding year, received compensation from the business of more than $115,000 (if the preceding year is 2014; $120,000 if the preceding year is 2015, 2016 or 2017), and, if the employer so chooses, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation. There are rules the restrict distributions from plans like 401ks. For example, treasury reg 1.401a(4)-5(b)(3) says that a plan cannot make a distribution to a HCE if that payment reduces the asset value of the plan to below 110% of the value of the plan's current liabilities. So, after taking account all distributions to be made to HCEs and the asset value of the plan, everyone likely gets proportionally reduced so that they don't run afoul of this rule. There are workarounds for this. But, these are options that the plan administrators may take, not you. I suppose if you were still employed there and at a high enough level, a company accountant would have discussed these options with you. Note, there's a chance there's some other limitation on HCEs that I'm missing which applies to your specific situation. Your best bet, to understand, is simply ask. Your money is still there, you just can't get it all this year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "52ac5428aefb5e55a7576108668702e0",
"text": "Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70984194947f7de1023eedc8c5189183",
"text": "The title is misleading. They're just offering employees the option of a lump sum and they're giving the rest to a separate company to handle because the massive pension liability hanging over GM's head makes investors nervous. The workers aren't getting screwed, they're still getting their pension payments. The unions have had pretty much unrestrained complete control over the US auto makers for much of recent history, and it wasn't until they realized that their demands were choking the life out of the whole industry that they finally started to back off a bit and the companies have been able to recover somewhat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4616ccf3ff0c5ee9c10e799473a0984b",
"text": "This is actually a very good point - any money that is spent on an employee in excess of the bare minimum required for them to perform their job should be viewed as a component of total rewards. You can directly extend OP's logic to any other form of compensation or benefits - Why let public employees take PTO except for when mandated by federal or state law? Why not target the 10th percentile of the market for all federal jobs? Why provide employees with retirement benefits? The answer to all of the above is that all elements of a total rewards package are necessary to attract, retain, and develop good employees. I've done consulting in the sphere of organizational structure, design, and development. I've seen the type of employees that a bare-bones total rewards philosophy attracts, and I'm not sure that I want them working for the public.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92d308764d35a5e4fa1a80bd047a03bf",
"text": "Corporations started dumping pensions in the 80's and 90's. I noted at the time that that while the original hiring incentives had been to take lower wages in lieu of the promise of a pension; they did not raise wages after they dumped the pensions. I think that the move was in part because corporate interests realized that through their pensions were about to control corporate America.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ff0160101bcf1e3bebef2062e58c7ac",
"text": "\"This is what is called \"\"stock dividend\"\". In essence the company is doing a split, the difference is in financial accounting and shouldn't concern you much as an individual investor. \"\"Fully paid up\"\", in this context, probably means \"\"unconditioned\"\", aka fully vested.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fe37bd3e480b3c4d7d039cdfb26aa2a",
"text": "\"IANAL, but no, this is not sound legal advice. There are a few things that stick out to me as fishy. First off: you are calculating the 3% safe-harbor on the 2017 compensation limit of $270k, but limiting yourself to $53k in total contributions which is the 2016 limit. It's hard to tell what tax year you're working in here. If you're planning for 2017, fine, but if you're wrapping up 2016 then you need to use 2016 limits. Secondly (and this is something I think your counsel should know already): you don't take Employer contributions out of gross wages (box 1) on the W-2. They aren't even reported there in the first place! With your base scenario the 2 employees' W-2s would look like this: Employee A's W-2 Gross Wages (box 1) = 280,000 - 14,966.67 = 265,033.33 Employee B's W-2 Gross Wages (box 1) = 280,000 - 0 = 280,000 Elective deferrals are the only thing that should come out of wages. Not the SH 3% or Match. Thirdly: Retirement Plan expenses really aren't an \"\"above the line\"\" expense. They are not included in cost of goods sold. Even if you establish a \"\"pool\"\" for that expense, it's still not a direct cost attributable to the production of whatever your company sells. Also: Employee B should not have to contribute to the retirement account of Employee A! The only situation I can see where Employee A and B would be required to fund the match equally, were if Employee A & B are both 50% owners and the company has no funds of its own with which to fund the match. The company has obligated itself to fund the match, and if the company doesn't have any money then the money still has to come from somewhere (ie. the owners pony up more funds for the match they promised their employees, it just happens that the employees are also the owners). Even in this situation though, I still stand behind my first 3 points.\"",
"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": "0f370bf139ba17fef15ce4b63eea3f6f",
"text": "Read this. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans The example makes it very clear.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65f4df12c75ee8d918c3ae3f76d96446",
"text": "This question is very open ended. But I'll try to answer parts of it. An employer can offer shares as part of a compensation package. Instead of paying cash the employer can use the money to buy up shares and give them to the employees. This is done to keep employees for longer periods of time and the employer may also want to create more insider ownership for a number of reasons. Another possibility is issuance of secondary offerings that are partially given to employees. Secondary offerings often lower the price of the shares in the market and create an incentive for employees to stay until the stock price rises. All of these conditions can be stipulated, look up golden handcuffs. Usually stock gifts are only given to a few high level employees and as part of a bonus package. It is very unusual to see a mature company regularly give away large amounts of stock, as this is a frowned upon practice. Start ups often pay their employees with stock up until the company is acquired or goes public.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5431c2cab3cce56d9fee60d53221b49b",
"text": "(1). Is this right? Pretty much, though this is a really rudimentary way to think about it. (2). If it is, why is it that extensive services are provided by high margin companies competing for talent, rather then lower margin businesses looking to boost their profits by reducing their expenditures on employees (by cutting out the government)? It's the polar opposite of that. Google (and companies like that) do things like have a day care center on premises. The company staffs a day care center which has costs, then lets employees use it for free. This is a business expense for Google, and in relative terms, a considerably large business expense that a lower margin business could no afford. Employer healthcare is a tax protected expense for employees via section 125 of the tax code. The company portion of the healthcare costs are a deductible business expense to the company, as expected. Healthcare is different than most other expenses because the employee can forego income before it's effectively received which negates it from taxable income. This doesn't work for something like food purchased at a cafe on a Google complex. If employee money is being spent at a corporate cafe, it's taxable income being spent (though the cost of running the cafe is a tax deductible business expense to the company). There have been discussions in congress to assess a value as income to employees for services like on site child care and no cost employee cafeterias. To address your new example: For example, suppose John Doe makes $100,000 a year taxed at a rate of 20%, for a take home pay of $80,000. He spends $10,000 on food. His employer Corporation decides to give him all of his food and deduct it as a business expense - costing them $10,000. But now they can pay John Doe an amount so his take home pay will be reduced by $10,000 - $87,500 The company is now spending $97500 employing John Doe, for a savings of $2500$. This would be an audit prone administrative nightmare. Either You need John to submit receipts for reimbursement up to the $10,000 agreed upon amount which would require some kind of administrative staff, or After a very short period of time John forgets the abstract value of the food cost arrangement, that is only really benefiting the employer in the form of lower payroll expense, and is enticed away for more pay somewhere else anyway. The company may be saving $2,500, though again there will be an additional administrative expense of some sort, but John is only saving $500 ($97,500 * 0.20 - $100,000 * 0.20).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fa5f90a015b8bf9c3b9938e88c0755a",
"text": "Those aren't distributions, they're contributions. Distribution is when the money comes out of the retirement accounts. Here is the best source (the IRS) for information about tax advantaged retirement plans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e879f38fa58808c3ac90ce38ebcf6904",
"text": "The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e5a296417919a3349a32bef497bbb96",
"text": "\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29bd8105129e64c16de2dd86aa42c515",
"text": "They don't care.. the people making those choices are judged on the short term basis; ie yearly bonus. They make the choice to move it over, reap a massive bonus for a couple of years before the profit starts to crumble then they bail out. I've seen it happen at no less than 5 of my clients.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adc6e15089c8a3f5d3ae3a5805a15a08",
"text": "In a well-managed company, employees bring more dollars to their employers than the employers pay the employees (salary and benefits). Employees trade potential reward for security (a regular paycheck). Employers take on the risk of needing to meet payroll and profit from the company's income, minus expenses. The potential rewards are much higher as an employer (self or otherwise), so the ones that do make it do quite well. But this is also consistent with your other statement that the reverse is not true; the risk of self-employment is high, and many self-employed people don't become millionaires.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1a25f1b408f7ae9914649915dbbce12f
|
What would a stock be worth if dividends did not exist? [duplicate]
|
[
{
"docid": "1c5f25b99fe4db218184e2bb4bccbc8c",
"text": "\"Unrealistic assumption, but I'll play along. Ultimately, dividends would exist because some innovative shareholder of some company, at some time, would desire income from their investment and could propose the idea of sharing the profit. Like-minded investors also desiring income could vote for dividends to come into existence — or, rather, vote for a board of directors that supports enactment of the idea. (In your fictitious world, shareholders do still control the corporation, right?) In this world, though, dividends wouldn't be called \"\"dividends\"\", a terrible name that's too \"\"mathy\"\" for the inhabitants of that world. Rather, they would institute a quarterly or annual shareholder profit share. Governments would enact legislation to approve of—nay, encourage such an innovation because it becomes a new source of recurring income they can tax. Alternatively, even if the idea of a cash dividend didn't occur to anybody in that world, investors would realize the stock price is depressed and could propose and vote for the board to institute share buybacks. The company repurchasing some portion of shares periodically would provide income to shareholders participating in the buyback. If the buyback were oversubscribed, they could structure it fairly (pro-rata participation, etc.) Alternatively, shareholders would pressure the board (or fire them and vote in a new board) to put the company up for sale and find a larger buyer, who would purchase the shares for cash. This can't scale forever, though, so the pressure will increase for solutions like #1 and #2.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7a74283b5d312d5d5b84245bf4dc5e0",
"text": "\"In the unlikely case that noone finds a way to extract resources from the company and distribute them to shareholders periodically in a way that's de facto equivalent to dividends, any company can be dissolved. The assets of the company would be sold for their market value, the liabilities would have to be settled, and the net result of all this (company cash + sale results - liabilities) would be distributed to shareholders proportionally to their shares. The 'liquidation value' is generally lower than the market value of a company as an ongoing concern that's making business and earning profit, but it does put a floor on it's value - if the stock price is too low, someone can buy enough stock to get control of the company, vote to dissolve it, and make a profit that way; and the mere fact that this can happen props up the stock price. Companies could even be created for a limited time period in the first hand (which has some historical precedent with shareholders of 'trading companies' with lifetime of a single trade voyage). Imagine that there is some company Megacorp2015 where shareholders want to receive $1M of its cash as \"\"dividends\"\". They can make appropriate contracts that will form a new company called Megacorp2016 that will take over all the ongoing business and assets except $1M in cash, and then liquidate Megacorp2015 and distribute it's assets (shares of Megacorp2016 and the \"\"dividend\"\") among themselves. The main difference from normal dividends is that in this process, you need cooperation from any lenders involved, so if the company has some long-term debts then they would need agreement from those banks in order to pay out \"\"dividends\"\". Oh, and everyone would have to pay a bunch more to lawyers simply to do \"\"dividends\"\" in this or some other convoluted way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8c0df79874e1a7f888fd3b4029697e3",
"text": "As a thought experiment I suppose we can ask where dividends came from and what would be different if they never existed. The VOC or Dutch East India Companywas the first to IPO, sell shares and also have a dividend. There had been trade entrepot before the VOC, the bulk cog (type of sea-going ship) trade in the Hanseatic League, but the VOC innovation was to pool capital to build giant spice freighters - more expensive than a merchant partnership could likely finance (and stand to lose at sea) on their own but more efficient than the cogs and focused on a trade good with more value. The Dutch Republic became rich by this capital formed to pursue high value trade. Without dividends this wouldn't have been an innovation in seventeenth century Europe and enterprises would be only as large as say the contemporary merchant family networks of Venice could finance. So there could be large partnerships, family businesses and debt financed ventures but no corporations as such.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c7b7bc49b3a18d2c21e9f2ddc23d02c",
"text": "A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "354b30beb9a55fa25cc1a12b002fd1ca",
"text": "This is how capital shares in split capital investment trusts work they never get any dividend they just get the capital when the company is wound up",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8a6ab2ad605b9d03ed7f3dd7d905f179",
"text": "In my mind its not the same. If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.",
"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": "dcf6b3771ad03916adfe08e2982cd346",
"text": "\"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34cde1e8bd12eb8855f66997fb014b0c",
"text": "Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c22c52e4aaebff770a0c2e1acd89cf3",
"text": "\"A share of stock is a share of the underlying business. If one believes the underlying business will grow in value, then one would expect the stock price to increase commensurately. Participants in the stock market, in theory, assign value based on some combination of factors like capital assets, cash on hand, revenue, cash flow, profits, dividends paid, and a bunch of other things, including \"\"intangibles\"\" like customer loyalty. A dividend stream may be more important to one investor than another. But, essentially, non-dividend paying companies (and, thus, their shares) are expected by their owners to become more valuable over time, at which point they may be sold for a profit. EDIT TO ADD: Let's take an extremely simple example of company valuation: book value, or the sum of assets (capital, cash, etc) and liabilities (debt, etc). Suppose our company has a book value of $1M today, and has 1 million shares outstanding, and so each share is priced at $1. Now, suppose the company, over the next year, puts another $1M in the bank through its profitable operation. Now, the book value is $2/share. Suppose further that the stock price did not go up, so the market capitalization is still $1M, but the underlying asset is worth $2M. Some extremely rational market participant should then immediately use his $1M to buy up all the shares of the company for $1M and sell the underlying assets for their $2M value, for an instant profit of 100%. But this rarely happens, because the existing shareholders are also rational, can read the balance sheet, and refuse to sell their shares unless they get something a lot closer to $2--likely even more if they expect the company to keep getting bigger. In reality, the valuation of shares is obviously much more complicated, but this is the essence of it. This is how one makes money from growth (as opposed to income) stocks. You are correct that you get no income stream while you hold the asset. But you do get money from selling, eventually.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bd14724d83214a490d517282be12cd3",
"text": "I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caa2039cbfb91620e8f945061e12ad2b",
"text": "Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "188c35f2cf0a3c4db73b1b2821dc442b",
"text": "\"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just \"\"bought a dividend:\"\" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend. So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000. What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier. Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend. What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b20ae0b7a53427e84f1435189b93ec3",
"text": "Nobody is going to buy a stock without returns. However, returns are dividends + capital gains. So long as there is enough of the latter it doesn't matter if there is none of the former. Consider: Berkshire Hathaway--Warren Buffet's company. It has never paid dividends. It just keeps going up because Warren Buffet makes the money grow. I would expect the price to crash if it ever paid dividends--that would be an indication that Warren Buffet couldn't find anything good to do with the money and thus an indication that the growth was going to stop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23cee925ddbb4a7e32c9671b6bf45718",
"text": "It depends. If you accept the offer, then your stock will cease existing. If you reject the offer, then you will become a minority shareholder. Depending on the circumstances, you could be in the case where it becomes illegal to trade your shares. That can happen if the firm ceases to be a public company. In that case, you would discount the cash flows of future dividends to determine worth because there would be no market for it. If the firm remained public and also was listed for trading, then you could sell your shares although the terms and conditions in the market would depend on how the controlling firm managed the original firm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f202937ec26c18b06aa1ba3356b006ad",
"text": "Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ca1c1d902376642b2036114196a52f8",
"text": "Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee000eda9fda8d9a922a0c33865f3118",
"text": "There can be the question of what objective do you have for buying the stock. If you want an income stream, then high yield stocks may be a way to get dividends without having additional transactions to sell shares while others may want capital appreciation and are willing to go without dividends to get this. You do realize that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are companies that the total stock value is over $100 billion yes? Thus, neither is what I'd see as a growth stock as these are giant companies that would require rather large sales to drive earnings growth though it may be interesting to see what kind of growth is expected for these companies. In looking at current dividends, one is paying 3% and the other 5% so I'm not sure either would be what I'd see as high yield. REITs would be more likely to have high dividends given their structure if you want something to research a bit more.",
"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": "55765f7687c9396197d73e17d5c30658",
"text": "Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3b0a47e845e0ff968786454ca90f1ab0
|
Valuing a company and comparing to share price
|
[
{
"docid": "7260e33a94f0592cc40cc223803db899",
"text": "There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3b6d8cc249e33d07ba0caa1431a81429",
"text": "Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c22c52e4aaebff770a0c2e1acd89cf3",
"text": "\"A share of stock is a share of the underlying business. If one believes the underlying business will grow in value, then one would expect the stock price to increase commensurately. Participants in the stock market, in theory, assign value based on some combination of factors like capital assets, cash on hand, revenue, cash flow, profits, dividends paid, and a bunch of other things, including \"\"intangibles\"\" like customer loyalty. A dividend stream may be more important to one investor than another. But, essentially, non-dividend paying companies (and, thus, their shares) are expected by their owners to become more valuable over time, at which point they may be sold for a profit. EDIT TO ADD: Let's take an extremely simple example of company valuation: book value, or the sum of assets (capital, cash, etc) and liabilities (debt, etc). Suppose our company has a book value of $1M today, and has 1 million shares outstanding, and so each share is priced at $1. Now, suppose the company, over the next year, puts another $1M in the bank through its profitable operation. Now, the book value is $2/share. Suppose further that the stock price did not go up, so the market capitalization is still $1M, but the underlying asset is worth $2M. Some extremely rational market participant should then immediately use his $1M to buy up all the shares of the company for $1M and sell the underlying assets for their $2M value, for an instant profit of 100%. But this rarely happens, because the existing shareholders are also rational, can read the balance sheet, and refuse to sell their shares unless they get something a lot closer to $2--likely even more if they expect the company to keep getting bigger. In reality, the valuation of shares is obviously much more complicated, but this is the essence of it. This is how one makes money from growth (as opposed to income) stocks. You are correct that you get no income stream while you hold the asset. But you do get money from selling, eventually.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ccaab31cbf55185b353f68bf4441bad",
"text": "Presumably you're talking about the different share class introduced in the recent stock split, which mean that there are now three Google share classes: Due to the voting rights, Class A shares should be worth more than class C, but how much only time will tell. Actually, one could very well argue that a non-voting share of a company that pays no dividends has no value at all. It's unlikely the markets will see it that way, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37bf7229d625595c8ad96f6ebdc4c443",
"text": "The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aa54db9a4904567ac7fe6bc6c909344",
"text": "\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3fc9d28d9777475580836ac0f283f3f",
"text": "I already know of this method. I was creating a peer group and found 4-5 very similar companies, however one of them is a foreign public company with a subsidiary competing directly with a company I am trying to find the beta for. I guess I have to omit this company because it's strictly foreign? Also, what do I do if I can't find any public companies that are similar to the company I am trying to value?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "217db2ca4993d62044f857c9618dbc9f",
"text": "If you are calculating: keep in mind that company A probably also sells washers, dryers, stoves, dish washers.... Each of which has their own market size. Also remember that people pay X times the value of earnings per share, so the value depends not on sales but on earnings, and expected growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75a0733bd9cb8aa9b7ca1bc98780f9f2",
"text": "\"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method: Discounted Cash Flows Calculator. Description: This calculator finds the fair value of a stock investment the theoretically correct way, as the present value of future earnings. You can find company earnings via the box below. [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article: Investment Valuation: A Little Theory. Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders for the same reason that a bond is valuable to bondholders: both are expected to generate cash for years into the future. Company profits are more volatile than bond coupons, but as an investor your task is the same in both cases: make a reasonable prediction about future earnings, and then \"\"discount\"\" them by calculating how much they are worth today. (And then you don't buy unless you can get a purchase price that's less than the sum of these present values, to make sure ownership will be worth the headache.) [...]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f535a0d7cc0538b79c889db8e26ef801",
"text": "Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2384963ed3c4bc5234386ab8f6ff4ab",
"text": "An investment trust is quoted just like a share. You just compare what you paid (your book cost) with its current share price, not the NAV, as a trust's price can be at a premium greater than the actual share price or a discount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59c4d3ea50aad7d39d3a7495aa8e3924",
"text": "Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee5c8dd03dbbb88e869d9288e03091f7",
"text": "\"At any given moment, one can tally the numbers used for NAV. It's math, and little more. The Market Cap, which as you understand is a result of share value. Share value (stock price) is what the market will pay today for the shares. It's not only based on NAV today, but on future expectations. And expectations aren't the same for each of us. Which is why there are always sellers for the buyers of a stock, and vice-versa. From your question, we agree that NAV can be measured, it's the result of adding up things that are all known. (For now, let's ignore things such as \"\"goodwill.\"\") Rarely is a stock price simply equal to the NAV divided by the number of shares. Often, it's quite higher. The simplest way to look at it is that the stock price not only reflects the NAV, but investors' expectations looking into the future. If you look for two companies with identical NAV per share but quite different share prices, you'll see that the companies differ in that one might be a high growth company, the other, a solid one but with a market that's not in such a growth mode.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b143acbcb0db499f15b967cf333ea82",
"text": "The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other.",
"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": "7c9353f6a0cae024f3d16f95ca48999b",
"text": "\"Check your math... \"\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\"\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8f1eab144d8f21ac7fed7acffb691048
|
How does 1099 work with my own company
|
[
{
"docid": "113ceb5d9dd121482e9d9a44002a48f2",
"text": "Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "908841e826e30f96712c7bdec6a1b499",
"text": "\"Being self-employed, your \"\"profit\"\" is calculated as all the bills you send out, minus all business-related cost that you have (you will need a receipt for everything, and there are different rules for things that last for long time, long tools, machinery). You can file your taxes yourself - the HRS website will tell you how to, and you can do it online. It's close to the same as your normal online tax return. Only thing is that you must keep receipts for all the cost that you claim. Your tax: Assuming your gross salary is £25,000 and your profits are about £10,000, you will be paying 8% for national insurance, and 20% income tax. If you go above £43,000 or thereabouts, you pay 40% income tax on any income above that threshold, instead of 20%, but your national insurance payments stop.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e732da138b264cabdd06ac9aed37229b",
"text": "The answer seems to depend on where you live. Perhaps you already found this, but the summary from the IRS is: The insurance laws in some states do not allow a corporation to purchase group health insurance when the corporation only has one employee. Therefore, if the shareholder was the sole corporate employee, the shareholder had to purchase his health insurance in his own name. The IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which ruled that under certain situations the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction even if the health insurance policy was purchased in the name of the shareholder. Notice 2008-1 provided four examples, including three examples in which the shareholder purchased the health insurance and one in which the S corporation purchased the health insurance. Notice 2008-1 states that if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name and paid for it with his own funds, the shareholder would not be allowed an above-the-line deduction. On the other hand, if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name but the S corporation either directly paid for the health insurance or reimbursed the shareholder for the health insurance and also included the premium payment in the shareholder’s W-2, the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction. The bottom line is that in order for a shareholder to claim an above-the-line deduction, the health insurance premiums must ultimately be paid by the S corporation and must be reported as taxable compensation in the shareholder’s W-2. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/S-Corporation-Compensation-and-Medical-Insurance-Issues I understand this to mean that you can only get the deduction in your case (having purchased it in your own name) if your state does not allow your S-Corp to purchase a group health plan because you only have one employee. (I don't know specifically if Illinois fits that description or not.) In addition, there are rules about reporting health insurance premiums for taxes for S-Corp share members that you should also check. Personally, I think that it's complicated enough that advice from a CPA or other tax advisor specific to your situation would be worth the cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64ff7d85368c789defd8b35ea3d24c03",
"text": "\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb4538721131cc3f19655a02ffa66286",
"text": "\"If you start an LLC with you as the sole member it will be considered a disregarded entity. This basically means that you have the protection of being a company, but all your revenues will go on your personal tax return and be taxed at whatever rate your personal rate calculates to based on your situation. Now here is the good stuff. If you file Form 2553 you can change your sole member LLC to file as an S Corp. Once you have done this it changes the game on how you can pay out what your company makes. You will need to employ yourself and give a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary. This will be reported to the IRS and you will file your normal tax returns and they will be taxed based on your situation. Now as the sole member you can then pay yourself \"\"distribution to share holders\"\" from your account and this money is not subject to normal fica and social security tax (check with your tax guy) and MAKE SURE to document correctly. The other thing is that on that same form you can elect to have a different fiscal year than the standard calendar IRS tax year. This means that you could then take part of profits in one tax year and part in another so that you don't bump yourself into another tax bracket. Example: You cut a deal and the company makes 100,000 in profit that you want to take as a distribution. If you wrote yourself a check for all of it then it could put you into another tax bracket. If your fiscal year were to end say on sept 30 and you cut the deal before that date then you could write say 50,000 this year and then on jan 1 write the other check.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bacdfd536e8d1bafca2bc17e11a56bb0",
"text": "I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d230b97c82f552fa6433e8f60ecfd99",
"text": "You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you. If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer. As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you. How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference). You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83582d9e279622316731ac9011bd023d",
"text": "The way deductions work normally does not take into account what account the transaction was made using. I.e. you report your gross income, your deductions and they subtract the deductions from the income. What's left is your taxable income. The tricky part comes with pre-tax contributions to tax advantaged accounts (like 401(k)). Those plans require the contributions to be made by your company. Since contributions to 529 plans are not deductible on your federal income taxes, the money is not going to be directly deposited. So it does not matter how the money goes into the plan. Just make sure you keep a record of your contributions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfbfc478fa486de7f3c15b3583b3666a",
"text": "It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9e5ea4e617dfb57896f673e055ff335",
"text": "Just earning the money would trigger a 1099 (assuming other requirements are met). It doesn't matter where the money is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a9011e433785e61732b017579a786a1",
"text": "Yes, but make sure you issue a 1099 to these freelancers by 1/31/2016 or you may forfeit your ability to claim the expenses. You will probably need to collect a W-9 from each freelancer but also check with oDesk as they may have the necessary paperwork already in place for this exact reason. Most importantly, consult with a trusted CPA to ensure you are completing all necessary forms correctly and following current IRS rules and regulations. PS - I do this myself for my own business and it's quite simple and straight forward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16cd7199c139d9f9e3025c20c4cacd73",
"text": "You can ask the client to pay you through the LLC. In that case you should invoice them from the LLC and have them pay the invoice. If they pay you personally, you can always make a capital contribution to the LLC and use that money to buy equipment. The tax implications for a single person LLC providing professional services are the same for you either way: income is income whether it's from your LLC or an employer. It's different for the employer if they are giving you a W2 vs a 1099. So it doesn't matter much for you. If the LLC is buying equipment, make sure you get enough revenue through the LLC to at least offset those expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1406ad7d12bc3a17399d0be238045b5b",
"text": "I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28a548b853776d6e465185cd77a0edb2",
"text": "I'm not sure 1099-MISC is what you should expect. Equity means ownership, and in LLC context it means membership. As an LLC member, you'll get distributions and should receive a K-1 form for tax treatment, not 1099 or W2. If the CEO is talking about 1099 it means he's going to hire you as a contractor which contradicts the statement about equity allocation. That's an entirely different situation. 1) Specifically, would the 1099-MISC form be used in this case? 1099-MISC is used to describe various payments. Depending on which box is filled, the tax treatment may be as of employment income (subject to SE taxes) or passive income (royalties, rents, etc - subject to various limitations in the tax code). 3) If this is the only logical method of compensation (receiving a % of real estate sales), how would it be taxed? That would probably be a commission and taxed as employment income. I suggest to get a professional tax adviser consultation on this issue, with specific details, numbers, and kinds of deals involved. You can get gain or lose a lot of money just because you're characterized as a contractor and not LLC member or employee (each has its own benefits and disadvantages, and you have to consider them all). 4) Are there any advantages/disadvantages to acquiring and selling properties through the company as opposed to receiving a % of sales? Yes. There are advantages and there are disadvantages. For example, if you're using a corporation, you can get salary, if you're a contractor you cannot. There are a lot of issues hidden in this distinction (which I've just discussed with KeithS in this argument).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "521ca52299c5af07b7cf3157b6a45764",
"text": "\"TL;DR: Get a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for tax issues, and a lawyer for the Operating Agreement, labor law and contract related issues. Some things are not suitable for DIY unless you know exactly what you're doing. We both do freelance work currently just through our personal names. What kind of taxes are we looking into paying into the business (besides setup of everything) compared to being a self proprietor? (I'm seeing that the general answer is no, as long as income is <200k, but not certain). Unless you decide to have your LLC taxed as a corporation, there's no change in taxes. LLC, by default, is a pass-through entity and all income will flow to your respective tax returns. From tax perspective, the LLC will be treated as a partnership. It will file form 1065 to report its income, and allocate the income to the members/partners on schedules K-1 which will be given to you. You'll use the numbers on the K-1 to transfer income allocated to you to your tax returns and pay taxes on that. Being out of state, will she incur more taxes from the money being now filtered through the business? Your employee couldn't care less about your tax problems. She will continue receiving the same salary whether you are a sole proprietor or a LLC, or Corporatoin. What kind of forms are we looking into needing/providing when switching to a LLC from freelance work? Normally we just get 1099's, what would that be now? Your contract counterparts couldn't care less about your tax problems. Unless you are a corporation, people who pay you more than $600 a year must file a 1099. Since you'll be a partnership, you'll need to provide the partnership EIN instead of your own SSN, but that's the only difference. Are LLC's required to pay taxes 4 times per year? We would definitely get an accountant for things, but being as this is side work, there will be times where we choose to not take on clients, which could cause multiple months of no income. Obviously we would save for when we need to pay taxes, but is there a magic number that says \"\"you must now pay four times per year\"\". Unless you choose to tax your LLC as a corporation, LLC will pay no taxes. You will need to make sure you have enough withholding to cover for the additional income, or pay the quarterly estimates. The magic number is $1000. If your withholding+estimates is $1000 less than what your tax liability is, you'll be penalized, unless the total withholding+estimates is more than 100% of your prior year tax liability (or 110%, depending on the amounts). The LLC would be 50% 50%, but that work would not always be that. We will be taking on smaller project through the company, so there will be times where one of us could potentially be making more money. Are we setting ourselves up for disaster if one is payed more than the other while still having equal ownership? Partnerships can be very flexible, and equity split doesn't have to be the same as income, loss or assets split. But, you'll need to have a lawyer draft your operational agreement which will define all these splits and who gets how much in what case. Make sure to cover as much as possible in that agreement in order to avoid problems later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bfc394f5b81ac7a46127529cd791709",
"text": "From the 1099 instructions: File Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for each person to whom you have paid during the year Your accounting method doesn't matter. You file 1099 for the year you paid the money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d17b2741ea126c401757c9f2cda6a586
|
Safe and cheap way to send money from Canada to South America
|
[
{
"docid": "cd8e2442cc976c93958606e280d1aa37",
"text": "\"The catch with any exchange service is that you're going to involve some sort of business and they're going to want to get paid for their service. These services all come with their own exchange rates, fees, waiting periods, or requirements to even use said service. Commonly, pros towards one of those comes at the cost of another— e.g. fast transfers have higher fees or worse exchange rates. Over the past few months I needed a service and ended up using USForex. Since you're going from CAD to USD, you'd likely need to use CanadianForex. Pros: Cons: Overall, this option was far better than the $97.00 I was quoted from WesternUnion; or the $25.00-45.00 I was quoted from BMO Harris, which would have required I open a saving account with them. I wasn't provided a clean exchange rate between these two to know how all three compared. The only bit of advice I can say with any service is compare exchange rates. If you're transferring more than a few hundred dollars, the exchange rate can be seen as a \"\"hidden\"\" fee when it's unreasonably low. I'm not affiliated with or accommodated by any of the exchange services mentioned.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6b3106db1d97e80a5130ab69402ab6bd",
"text": "There are many options to send money internationally. You can send it through PayPal (assuming that both you and your friend have a PayPal account). You can also send it through money services such as Western Union (assuming you can both get to a WU location). Or, you can use popular apps such as Venmo for sending money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "457d622371d738723f400eaa2f67c280",
"text": "frostbank.com is the closest thing I've found, so accepting this (my own) answer :) EDIT: editing from my comment earlier: frostbank.com has free incoming international wires, so that's a partial solution. I confirmed this works by depositing $1 (no min deposit requirement) and wiring $100 from a non-US bank. Worked great, no fees, and ACH'd it to my main back, no problems/fees. No outgoing international wires, alas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "defacdad2fe54876438533f538acc0a1",
"text": "You could find a relative in another country who has the ability to receive PayPal, and have them transfer the money to you via Western Union or Hawala.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "658753afb2ce69e32d23b16aa02a4b7e",
"text": "If I understand TransferWise’s Supported Countries page correctly, you could use their service. I believe it should be cheaper than having the bank convert. I've been very happy with the service and use it regularly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d11cb4a3b0931a5b400b4622e812ebf8",
"text": "I am not aware of a version of Interac available in the U.S., but there are alternative ways to receive money: Cheque. The problem with mailed cheques is that they take time to deliver, and time to clear. If you ship your wares before the cheque has cleared and the cheque is bad, you're out the merchandise. COD. How this works is you place a COD charge on your item at the post office in the amount you charge the customer. The post office delivers the package on the other end when the customer pays. The post office pays you at the time you send the package. There is a fee for this, talk to your local post office or visit the Canada Post website. Money order. Have your U.S. customers send an International Money Order, not a Domestic Money Order. Domestic money orders can only be cashed at a U.S. post office. The problem here is again delivery time, and verifying your customer sent an International Money Order. It can be a pain to have to send back a Domestic Money Order to a customer explaining what they have to do to pay you, even more painful if you don't catch the error before shipping your wares. Credit Card. There are a number of companies offering credit card processing that are much cheaper than a bank. PayPal, Square, and Intuit are three such companies offering these services. After I did my investigations I found Square to be the best deal for me. Please do your own research on these companies (and banks!) and find out which one makes the most sense for you. Some transaction companies may forbid the processing of payment for e-cig materials as they my be classed as tobacco.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2afdb7895ff858324e1611105b470a98",
"text": "\"Bad plan. This seems like a recipe for having your money taken away from you by CBP. Let me explain the biases which make it so. US banking is reliable enough for the common citizen, that everyone simply uses banks. To elaborate, Americans who are unbanked either can't produce simple identity paperwork; or they got an account but then got blacklisted for overdrawing it. These are problems of the poor, not millionaires. Outside of determined \"\"off the grid\"\" folks with political reasons to not be in the banking and credit systsm, anyone with money uses the banking system. Who's not a criminal, anyway. We also have strong laws against money laundering: turning cash (of questionable origin) into \"\"sanitized\"\" cash on deposit in a bank. The most obvious trick is deposit $5000/day for 200 days. Nope, that's Structuring: yeah, we have a word for that. A guy with $1 million cash, it is presumed he has no choice: he can't convert it into a bank deposit, as in this problem - note where she says she can't launder it. If it's normal for people in your country to haul around cash, due to a defective banking system, you're not the only one with that problem, and nearby there'll be a country with a good banking system who understands your situation. Deposit it there. Then retain a US lawyer who specializes in this, and follow his advice about moving the money to the US via funds transfer. Even then, you may have some explaining to do; but far less than with cash. (And keep in mind for those politically motivated off-the-financial-grid types, they're a bit crazy but definitely not stupid, live a cash life everyday, and know the law better than anybody. They would definitely consider using banks and funds transfers for the border crossing proper, because of Customs. Then they'll turn it into cash domestically and close the accounts.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de2a52a96bc2cc98117b5ae5ccf55134",
"text": "An addition to the other answers more than a real answer I suspect. Note that fees are not the only way that you pay for foreign exchange; where no foreign exchange fee is charged the issuer makes it back by giving an appalling spread on the rate. Be very careful not to go for a card that has no fees but an exorbitant spread. I personally would open a CAD denominated account in Canada and convert a larger amount into that account when CAD is historically weak. The spreads will be better that way but don't attempt to use it to mitigate exchange rate risk or to trade the two currencies for profit as that way madness and penury lie.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "800c5783f99b60b8c046861416bb28c6",
"text": "If you trust the other party, an international bank wire would be the quickest, easiest, and cheapest option. It is the standard way to pay for something overseas from the United States. Unfortunately, in most cases, they are not reversible. I don't believe Paypal is an option for an amount that large. Escrow companies do exist, but you would have to research those on a case by case basis to see if any fit the criteria for your transaction and the countries involved. I'll also add: If it were me, and there was no way to get references or verify the person's identity and intent to my satisfaction, then I would probably consider hopping on a plane. For that amount of money, I would verify the person and items are legitimate, in person, and then wire the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6f319e0659b1791e965d38d59ef35fe",
"text": "You would probably be better off wiring the money from your US account to your French account. That IMHO is the cheapest and safest way. It doesn't matter much which bank to use, as it will go through the same route of SWIFT transfer, just choose the banks with the lowest fees on both sides, shop around a little.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1853626fb52451da253d4584c6a00fad",
"text": "\"I sent myself an Tangerine email money transfer. They sent me an email which took me to a website. After I entered the secret answer, they asked me for the destination bank account's details. They asked me to enter the transit number once, the institution number once, and the account number twice. They also showed a bold warning message: \"\"Please ensure that the details of your Canadian Bank Account (account number and bank information) are entered correctly.\"\" Asking for the account number twice isn't a perfect safeguard, but it's better than nothing. In some countries, bank account numbers include a \"\"check digit\"\" for typo prevention, but I was unable to find any evidence online that this is true in Canada. Tangerine's system isn't 100% mistake-proof, but it's good enough that I think I'm going to use it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f",
"text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a404654ead22b2255f0566d521035db",
"text": "\"@sdg's answer is spot-on with the advice to avoid repeated conversions, but I'd like to provide some specifics on the fees involved: Each time you round-trip Canadian dollars (CAD) through a U.S.-dollar (USD) priced security at TD Waterhouse and leave your proceeds in CAD, you're paying a total foreign exchange fee – implied in their rate spread – of about 3%, give or take. That's ~3% per buy & sell combination, or ~1.5% on each end. You can imagine if you trade back & forth frequently, you can quickly lose a lot of money. Do it back and forth ten times in a year and you're out ~30% on the fees alone! The TD U.S. Money Market Fund (TDB166) that TD Waterhouse is referring to has no direct commission to buy or sell, but it does have a Management Expense Ratio (MER) of 0.20% per year – basically a fee which is deducted from the fund's returns (which, today, are also close to zero.) Practically speaking, that's a very slim fee to hold some USD in your Canadian dollar TFSA. While 0.20% is cheap, a point to keep in mind is if you maintain a significant USD balance, you are maintaining currency risk: You can lose money in CAD terms if the CAD appreciates vs. USD. Additional references: Canadian Capitalist describes TD Waterhouse and the use of TDB166 and \"\"wash trades\"\" at How to \"\"Wash\"\" Your Trade? He's referring to RRSPs, but the same applies to TFSAs, which came out after the post was written. Canadian Couch Potato has two relevant articles: Are US-listed ETFs Really Cheaper? and Lowering Your Currency Exchange Fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79eabf0ae820460afcb4fd80cb9bcae9",
"text": "Essentially you can send a Check by mail, you brother deposits into Bank account. It costs very little, the time required would be around 1-2 months. You can do International Wire [Via SWIFT] it would reach in few days, fees are high. You can use specialized remittance services like Money2india, remit2india, or western union etc. The fees are low and generally funds reach in a week.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f678d63d1dfbbadafbbe7c07f7fca21",
"text": "You could use a money transfer service like Western Union or the equivalent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f8931eeb8edde7882438baa17bdae27",
"text": "If you can make the trip to BC yourself, I'd recommend opening an account with TD Canada Trust. They allow non-citizens to make accounts — apparently the only Canadian bank to do so. The customer service is great and they have a good online banking site that will allow you to manage it from the US. If you have an account with TD Bank in the US, it's also very easy to set up a TD Canada account through them that will be linked on their online site (though you will still have separate logins for both and manage them separately). I've done the reverse as a Canadian living in the US. You can set it up over the phone; their Cross-Border Banking number is listed here. They also offer better currency conversion rates than their standard ones when you do a cross-border transfer. You could also look into HSBC as well. They operate in Washington as well as across the border in BC. If you can't open a CAD account locally, they can help you open and manage one in Canada from the US. It may or may not require having a small business account instead of a personal account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
099160fe4188882f9220cfe738b6c08e
|
Is it worth incorporating, when working in Canada as a contractor for an employer in the US?
|
[
{
"docid": "202023489078ad72c57b4565606684c3",
"text": "\"Interesting as I am in the exact same situations as yourself. I, in fact, just incorporated. You will be able \"\"save\"\" more in taxes in the end. The reason I put \"\"save\"\" in quotes, is that you don't necessarily save on taxes, but you can defer taxes. The driving factor behind this is that you specify your own fiscal calendar/year. Incorporating allows you to defer income for up to 6 months. Meaning that if you make your fiscal year starting in August or September, for example, you can claim that income on the following year (August + 6 months = February). It allows you to keep the current year taxes down. Also, any income left over at year end, is taxed at 15% (the Corporation rate) rather than the 30-40% personal rate you get with a sole-proprietorship. In a nutshell, with sole-proprietorship, all income is taxable (after write-offs)... in a corporation, you can take some of that income and keep it in the corporation (gives your company a \"\"value\"\"), and is only taxed at 15% - big saving there. I primarily work with US businesses. I am, however, a dual-citizen, US and Canadian, which allowed me as a sole-proprietor, to easily work with US companies. However, as a sole-proprietor or a Corporation, you simply need to get an EIN from the IRS and any US company will report earnings to that number, with no deductions. At year end, it is your responsibility to file the necessary tax forms and pay the necessary taxes to both countries. Therefore you can solicit new US business if you choose, but this is not restricted to corporations. The real benefit in incorporating is what I mentioned above. My suggestion to you is to speak with you CA, who can outline all benefits. Revenue Canada's website had some good information on this topic as well. Please let me know if you need anything else explained.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7370a33a0e00e3ab8b244ef51854982a",
"text": "\"I know this is a little late but here is my answer. No. You do not \"\"need\"\" to incorporate. In fact, incorporating in your situation will cost you in legal fees, administrative headaches, and a fair bit in taxes. The CRA would probably look at your corporation as a personal services corporation and it would not be allowed to claim a number of tax reductions. The tax rate would end up being over the top range (unless you are in Quebec where it would be just under the top marginal range).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d402dc885d5d6ef6afda8b49de969880",
"text": "You're doing business in the US and derive income from the US, so I'd say that yes, you should file a non-resident tax return in the US. And in Connecticut, as well, since that's where you're conducting business (via your domestic LLC registered there). Since you paid more than $600 to your contractor, you're probably also supposed to send a 1099 to him on that account on behalf of your LLC (which is you, essentially, if you're the only member).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f0b77539fde6780785caa9c608426fb",
"text": "The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d5db709426ecd7f9d7fbe0d9e7ed547",
"text": "They believe that it reduces the risk that Revenue Canada will deem you to be an employee and make them pay a whole pile of tax, EI, CPP and so on that should have been paid if you had been hired as an employee. It's my recollection that the employer gets dinged for both the employee and employer share of those withholdings (and generally the employer's share is larger than yours) so they really want to prevent it. There's a Revenue Canada publication about whether you're an employee or not. There's nothing on it about being incorporated, but still employers feel more protected when their contracts are incorporated. We did work as a sole proprietorship at the very beginning, so that we could deduct our losses against employment income earned earlier in the year, before we started the business. You can find clients who will take you on. We incorporated once the losses were over with (basically we had bought the equipment and office supplies we needed to get started.) It's a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do, and gives clients a sense of protection. It won't protect you from your own poor decisions since you'll be a director of the firm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cd06f09541ff85e29fb9bb2fa1596e7",
"text": "This sounds very like disguised employment. You act like an employee of the company, but your official relationship with them is as a contractor. You gain none of the protection you get from being an employee, and this may make you cheaper, less risky and more desirable for the company who is hiring you. Depending on your country you may also pay corporation tax rather than income tax, which may represent a very significant saving. Also, the company hiring you may not have to pay PAYE, national insurance, stakeholder pension, etc. This arrangement is normal and legal providing you genuinely are acting as a subcontractor. However if you are behaving as an employee (desk at the company, company email, have to work specific hours in a specific location, no ability to subcontract, etc.) you may be classified as a disguised employee. In the UK it used to be common practice for highly paid employees to set up shell companies to avoid tax. This will now get you into hot water. Google IR35 It sounds like your relationship in this case is directly with the recruiter. You will have to consider if the recruiter is acting as your employer, or if you remain a genuinely independent agent. The duration of your contract with the recruiter will have a bearing on this. In the UK there are a whole series of tests for disguised employment. This is a good arrangement provided you go in with your eyes open and an awareness of the legislation. However you should absolutely check the rules that apply in your country before entering into this agreement. You could potentially be stung very badly indeed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25c8de141bcd410796ff629067dd17e8",
"text": "\"First, point: The CRA wants you to start a business with a \"\"Reasonable expectation of profit\"\". They typically expect to see a profit within 5 years, so you may be inviting unwanted questions from future auditors by using a breakeven strategy. Second point: If the goal is to pay as little tax as possible, you may want to consider having the corporation pay you as little as possible. Corporate income taxes are much lower than personal income taxes, according to these two CRA links: How it works is that your company pays you little as an outright salary and offers you perks like a leased company car, expense account for lunch and entertainment, a mobile phone, computer, etc. The company owns all of this stuff and lets you use it as part of the job. The company pays for all this stuff with corporate pre-tax dollars as opposed to you paying for it with personal after-tax dollars. There are specifics on meals & entertainment which modify this slightly (you can claim 50%) but you get the idea. The actual rate difference will depend on your province of residence and your corporate income level. There is also a requirement for \"\"Reasonable Expenses\"\", such that the expenses have to be in line with what you are doing. If you need to travel to a conference each year, that would be a reasonable expense. Adding your family and making it a vacation for everyone would not. You can claim such expenses as a sole proprietor or a corporation. The sole-proprietorship option puts any after-expense profits into your pocket as taxable income, where the corporate structure allows the corporation to hold funds and limit the amount paid out to you. I've seen this strategy successfully done first-hand, but have not done it myself. I am not a lawyer or accountant, consult these professionals about this tax strategy before taking any action.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a6c8b85bac2aa40c815d4671c636b1d",
"text": "Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a27043c26b7dc545bbb03381812a8595",
"text": "As per the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty (the “Treaty”), a U.S. corporation carrying on business in Canada is only subject to taxation on income earned in Canada through a fixed place of business or permanent establishment. Therefore, if a U.S. company does not have a permanent establishment (PE) in Canada then their Canadian source business income is not subject to Canadian federal tax. https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/USA_-eng.asp",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bf683f73eaca9db5871c953efed4ff7",
"text": "\"This is an answer grounded in reality, not advice. Most states have no means of enforcing their foreign business entity registration statutes. Some states never even codified consequences. (California is a notable exception.). Some states have 'business licenses' that you need in order to defend your entity in court, but will retroactively apply the corporate veil when you get the license. The \"\"do I have to register\"\" question is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut. But this doesn't absolve you of looking in the mirror (doing your research). Registration and INCOME taxes are different stories. If a state calls their fee a franchise tax and it is applicable and there are real consequences for not, then you will have to pay that tax. Anyway, this isn't advocating breaking the law, but since it describes ignoring toothless state-chartered agencies, then there are people that will disagree with this post, despite being in line with business climate in the United States. Hope that helps\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37feddb6cb3a7bb862d4267ba2ae404f",
"text": "I'm not missing the point. Canada will still charge you/a corporation income taxes on worldwide income so long as you are resident in Canada. If you are incorporated in Canada but resident elsewhere, you are only subject to tax on Canadian-sourced income. In the US, where you are incorporated is the method of determining liability. Why is one method of determining jurisdiction correct and not the other? If you are a corporation residing in Canada, you still pay Canadian taxes on worldwide income, even if that income is sourced in another country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8ea55b8b623ba0c931af98338036e0b",
"text": "\"In the United States, with an S-Corp, you pay yourself a salary from company earnings. That portion is taxed at an individual rate. The rest of the company earnings are taxed as a corporation, which often have great tax benefits. If you are making over $80K/year, the difference can be substantial. A con is that there is more paperwork and you have to create a \"\"board\"\" of advisors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9b1750861a184a70777dda66fa97951",
"text": "\"Be careful here: If ACME were in California, I would pay taxes on USD 17,000 because I had revenue of 20,000 and expenses of 3,000. To CALIFORNIA. And California taxes S-Corps. And, in addition, you'd pay $800 for the right of doing business in the State. All that in addition to the regular Federal and State taxes to the State where you're resident. Suppose that ACME is in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter). My revenue and expenses are the same, but now my money has been earned and my expenses incurred in a foreign country. Same thing exactly. Except that you'll have to pay taxes to the UK. There may be some provision in the tax treaty to help you though, so you may end up paying less taxes when working in the UK than in California. Check with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who won't run away from you after you say the words \"\"Tax Treaty\"\". Does it even make sense to use my S-Corporation to do business in a foreign country? That should be a business decision, don't let the tax considerations drive your business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8ad670321acaed5751ea3172021336",
"text": "I'll just re-post my comment as an answer as i disagree with Michael Pryor. According to this article (and few others) you may save money by incorporating. These factors don’t change the general payroll tax advantage of an S corporation, however: A S corporation can often save business owners substantial amounts of payroll tax if the business profit greatly exceeds what the business needs to pay owners for their work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f732bdd6254aa7f83b1bfdb31ddc9704",
"text": "*Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. *Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef325af95e1dfafaa8396f9a31045429",
"text": "\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c2d097dce63103e72063635f641f745f
|
Is it possible as a non-Indian citizen to create an Indian bank account (denominated in rupees) that can exchange & repatriate its funds?
|
[
{
"docid": "2b0575f84d48dc745cabb99f48049fcd",
"text": "No, in your situation it is not possible. Mostly, only three types of accounts are available to individuals: So, a complete foreigner can open account in India, only if he is working in India, a type of Savings account, and that account too will be linked to his resident status. If he leaves work, he needs to close this account. Edit: There are business accounts, and current accounts, but those are available only to businesses. Further read at SBI gives a good snapshot",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "295d1fc6625802aa6d59929026e4f2a7",
"text": "$USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD. Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs. So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would). No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "febb57a067713cbee6ebfa09942ff56c",
"text": "Your bank will gladly help you convert your Indian savings accounts into NRO savings accounts. You cannot change these accounts into NRE accounts directly; NRE accounts are supposed to be funded via deposits made from foreign currency accounts. Under the liberalized schemes available now, you can transfer the money in your regular savings account into your account abroad, converting it into foreign currency, if you (and your CA) provide proof to your bank (and the Reserve Bank of India) that you have paid all applicable taxes on the money in your savings account. And then you can transfer it all back into your NRE account. Perhaps you can combine these two steps into a single one, thereby putting the money in your regular savings account into an NRE account in one step, but I am sure that there will be lots of fees involved (e.g. you might get whacked by commissions, as well as the exchange rate differential as if you converted Indian rupees to US dollars, say, and then converted the dollars back to rupees) just as if you did the two-step conversion. There are no taxes involved in moving your own money into different accounts but there can be lots of fees and service charges.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2619366ee98c92d3d5591dded0e17043",
"text": "You can remotely close the account and transfer the money out to your account in home country. If you have netbanking you can also setup remittance service to your country",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd51e41286f438d119b6a58271134c36",
"text": "HDFC Bank offers an easy and comfortable way to hold the foreign currency for NRIs with a RFC Savings Account. You can deposit money in 4 different currencies and anytime convert them into money. Apply for an HDFC Bank RFC Account now!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af8de9e092b36f3580fd5a3e7895374b",
"text": "Is it possible to open a GBP bank account in Pakistan ? Yes you can. Quite a few Banks offer Foreign currency accounts in GBP [or USD or EUR, JPY] Are there any risks in doing so ? Generally no. As per Protection of Economic Reforms Act (PERA) of 1992 and foreign currency accounts (protection) ordinance 2001 the funds are protected and you can move them back out of Pakistan any time. However if you are looking at investing into property and then selling it after few years, there maybe difficulties in such transactions and consult a tax advisor familiar with such cases. All money is legit with bank statements of my pay which is between 35K and 40K per year, am I going to have any trouble at airport as limit is £7K only Carrying cash of this amount is generally not advisable. It is best to do a Bank to Bank transfer. You can visit one of the Pakistan Bank that has branch in UK [say Standard Chartered, Citi, HSBC, etc]. They should be able to open account with transfer of funds. There is no limitation on carrying foreign exchange in cash when you enter Pakistan. However when you are travelling out of Pakistan you can only carry USD 10,000 or eq. per person.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d608f482e2617e674cae8ec514453434",
"text": "\"There is no \"\"reason why this cannot be done\"\", but you can tell your friend that these actions are officially shady in the eyes of the US government. Any bank transactions with a value of $10,000 or more are automatically reported to the government as a way to prevent money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal shenanigans. \"\"Structuring\"\" bank deposits to avoid this monetary limit is a crime in and of itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a9db00ea0772b57065383a8e332b99a",
"text": "Opening account in foreign bank is possible, but you must have strong proofs you use it for legitimate purposes. More chances to get an account if you visit Europe and able to stay, for example, for a week, to visit bank in person and wait for all the checks and approvals. Also keep in mind that there will be deposit/withdraw limits and fees applicable, that are significantly stricter and larger for non-EU citizen. In my opinion, if your amounts are not large, it might not worth it. If amounts are large, you might consider business account rather than personal, as is the example of strong proof I meant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dd925a91e357540cf7e594b636f361c",
"text": "I want to send some money to Indian in my saving account but I haven't any NRO/NRE account. It is advisable to Open an NRE account. As an NRI you cannot hold a savings account. Please have this converted into NRO account ASAP. Process or Transaction charges or Tax (levied by Indian bank) on money what I'll send to my saving account in India. I know the process or transaction charges (applied by UK banks) from UK to India. There will be a nominal charge levied by banks in India. If you use dedicated Remittance services [Most Leading Indian Banks offer this], these are mostly free. Is there any limit to get rid off tax? Nope there isn't any limit. This depends on service provider. What types of paper work I'll need to do for showing that income is sent from UK after paying tax. If you transfer to NRE account. There is no paperwork required. It is implicit. If not you have to establish that the funds are received from outside India, keep copies of the transfer request initiated, debits to the Bank Account in UK, your salary slips, Passport stamps etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f88fcb019da809facd934c61dfe7b09",
"text": "On my recent visit to the bank, I was told that money coming into the NRE account can only be foreign currency and for NRO accounts, the money can come in local currency but has to be a valid source of income (e.g. rent or investments in India). Yes this is correct as per FMEA regulation in India. Now if we use 3rd party remittances like Remitly or Transferwise etc, they usually covert the foreign currency into local currency like INR and then deposit it. The remittance services are better suited for transferring funds to Normal Savings accounts of your loved ones. Most remittance services would transfer funds using a domestic clearing network [NEFT] and hence the trace that funds originated outside of India is lost. There could be some generic remittance that may have direct tie-up with some banks to do direct transfers. How can we achieve this in either NRE/NRO accounts? If not, what are the other options ? You can do a Wire Transfer [SWIFT] from US to Indian NRE account. You can also use the remittance services [if available] from Banks where you hold NRE Account. For example RemittoIndia from HDFC for an NRE account in HDFC, or Money2India from ICICI for an NRE account in ICICI or QuickRemit from SBI etc. These would preserve the history that funds originated from outside India. Similarly you can also deposit a Foreign Currency Check into Indian Bank Account. The funds would take around month or so to get credited. All other funds can be deposited in NRO account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e803d3ce78df0dfcbda79a339f73112",
"text": "Yes NRIs are allowed to open a DEMAT account in India from abroad. Investments can be made under the Portfolio Investment NRI Scheme (PINS) either on repatriation or non-repatriation basis. As per,the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India it is mandatory for NRIs to open a trading account with a designated institution authorized by the RBI. They must avail either a Non-Resident Ordinary (NRO) or Non-Resident External (NRE) account to route the various investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7310f4dd8a03dcd115e9d50b9d7b9c74",
"text": "Best consult a CA as you may anyway need his/her service. I am NRI, availed secured loan (Against house property) in India and now I want to get that money transferred to Finland. Loans by NRI taken in India cannot be transferred outside of India. Refer FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT (BORROWING AND LENDING IN RUPEES) REGULATIONS Loans in Rupees to non-residents 1[***]. 7. Subject to the directions issued by the Reserve Bank from time to time in this regard, an authorised dealer in India may grant loan to a non-resident Indian, (B) against the security of immovable property (other than agricultural or plantation property or farm house), held by him in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2000 : ...... Provided that- (d) the loan amount shall not be remitted outside India; Alternative: Sell the property in India, transfer the proceeds to NRO account. Repatriate the funds outside India as per Liberalized Remittance Scheme. Form 15CA/CB with CA certificate will be required.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3da6581a70d5dbae8ecdb677ea0df69d",
"text": "\"The Option 2 in your answer is how most of the money is moved cross border. It is called International Transfer, most of it carried out using the SWIFT network. This is expensive, at a minimum it costs in the range of USD 30 to USD 50. This becomes a expensive mechanism to transfer small sums of money that individuals are typically looking at. Over a period of years, the low value payments by individuals between certain pair of countries is quite high, example US-India, US-China, Middle-East-India, US-Mexico etc ... With the intention to reduce cost, Banks have built a different work-flow, this is the Option 1. This essentially works on getting money from multiple individuals in EUR. The aggregated sum is converted into INR, then transferred to partner Bank in India via Single SWIFT. Alongside the partner bank is also sent a file of instructions having the credit account. The Partner Bank in India will use the local clearing network [these days NEFT] to credit the funds to the Indian account. Option 3: Other methods include you writing a check in EUR and sending it over to a friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically very nominal costs. Typically one month of timelines. Option 4: Another method would be to visit an Indian Bank and ask them to issue a \"\"Rupee Draft/Bankers Check\"\" payable in India. The charges for this would be higher than Option 3, less than Option 1. Mail this to friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically couple of days timelines for transfer to happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9a3dfa1f556faed2d300371982d3cf4",
"text": "I assume that you are a citizen of India, and are what Indian law calls a NRI (NonResident Indian) and thus entitled to operate an NRE (NonResident External) account in India. You can deposit US dollars into the NRE account, but the money is converted to Indian Rupees (INR) and held as INR. You can withdraw the money and bring it back to the US as US dollars, but the INR will be converted to US$ at the exchange rate applicable on the date of the transaction. With the recent decline of the Indian Rupee against the US dollar, many NRE accounts lost a lot of their value. You can deposit any amount of money in your NRE account. Some banks may limit the amount you can send in one business day, but if 250 times that amount seriously limits the amount of money you want to send each year, you should not be asking here; there are enough expensive lawyers, bankers and tax advisors who will gladly guide you to a satisfactory solution. There is no limitation on the total amount that you can have in your NRE account. The earnings (interest paid) on the sum in your NRE account is not taxable income to you in India but you may still need to file an income tax return in India to get a refund of the tax withheld by the bank (TDS) and sent to the tax authorities. The bank should not withhold tax on the earnings in an NRE account but it did happen to me (in the past). While the interest paid on your NRE account is not taxable in India, it is taxable income to you on your US tax returns (both Federal and State) and you must declare it on your tax return(s) even though the bank will not issue a 1099-INT form to you. Be aware also about the reporting requirements for foreign accounts (FBAR, TD F90-22.1 etc). Lots of people ignored this requirement in the past, but are more diligent these days after the IRS got a truckload of information about accounts in foreign banks and went after people charging them big penalties for not filing these forms for ever so many years. There was a huge ruckus in the Indian communities in the US about how the IRS was unfairly targeting simple folks instead of auditing the rich! But, if the total value of the accounts did not exceed $10K at any time of the year, these forms do not need to be filed. It seems, though, that you will not fall under this exemption since you are planning on having considerably larger sums in your NRE account. So be sure and follow the rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b71820880b93dab670918282f1115cc2",
"text": "I wouldn't send it to India in the first place because their financial system is a bit sketchy, I would look into countries like Germany to send the money to you if you're looking to avoid high taxes with a very stable financial system",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ead718688f897093ee037a805e51a8eb",
"text": "As an NRI there are certain limitations as well as benefits. Limitation in terms of holding a specified quantity of shares in company, thus the need to open new account, so that Bank can track the holding and inform regulator. Benfits in terms of able to reptriate any amount of funds from trades in this account. In order to ease this, there are 2 Accounts NRO demat account (Non PINS): Essentially this does not automatically allow for reptration of funds [like NRE] but its more like NRO, amount upto USD 1 million per year. NRO Demat account PINS: Here you can buy fresh shares and take the proceeds out of country without any limits. So in short, you would need an NRO Demat NON PINS Account. Transfer your existing shares here. Sell whenever you like. Open a NRO Demat PINS account, if you wish to buy more with status as NRI, if you don't wish you buy, there is no need for this account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4066ff29dc9b028cadbff6c82ab6ba3c
|
What factors should I consider in picking a bond?
|
[
{
"docid": "2b1a8a2a609b0f853660a8786305f123",
"text": "just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "296b7a2e96d632ad86e69f69b97d10fe",
"text": "It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here. A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments. My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities. Government bonds earn way too little. The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity. I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it. My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people. If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap. If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d029f09d556c5214bb4458699d3a32e",
"text": "Possibly you could use it as a hedging instrument if it's correlated in some way with another asset you're holding. Even though it seems you're losing money with such a bond, that loss might be less than the hedging costs associated with other instruments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3597d5686151e5780cf14fe1fd20ac7",
"text": "Perfect super clear, thank you /u/xlct2 So it is like you buy a bond for $X, start getting interest, sell bond for $X :) I was thinking there could be a possibility of a bond working like a loan from a bank, that you going paying as time goes by :D",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e732648b31005f1d4e21e034a068d67",
"text": "There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1c46893327d804557dd536a856247f9",
"text": "tl,dr: I-bonds do not fit well into most personal finance plans. First the questions (succinct reference): I like your thought process weighing your liquidity and risk versus your return. This is very important. However, I think you might be sidetracked a bit by I-Bonds. I-Bonds are not generally good for personal investment as they are not marketable when necessary, have redemption penalties and hold lower overall yields in general. Finally, they are significantly harder to trade as you can buy and hold a TIPS ETF and get exposure to all maturities and get the current competitive rate all in one purchase. Inflation protection is in general an interesting problem. While inflation-protected bonds sound like they are great for inflation protection (after all it is in the name), they may not be the best instruments for long/medium term protection. It is really important to remember that inflation protected bonds have significantly lower returns and one form of inflation protection is to just have more money in the future. TIPS really protect against large inflation changes as normal bonds have the future expected inflation already baked in their higher rates. Also, when you own a stock you own part of a company and inflation will increase the value of the company relative to the inflated currency. Foreign stocks can give even more protection if you think inflation in your local currency is going to be higher then the foreign currency. Stocks in the past have had significantly higher return overall than inflation protected bonds but have higher risk as well. As a medium term, low-risk portfolio, it is worth looking into some combination of TIPS, normal bonds and a small to medium allocation of local/foreign stocks all done through low-fee mutual funds or index ETFs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e6602bd884bae5981aa067b8b0c3763",
"text": "\"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield. Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got \"\"enhanced\"\" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument. Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly. I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual \"\"ease of transacting\"\") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to compare your alternatives before investing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34cd5a23fbe463b0ccd510681344e33d",
"text": "As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f741b5e69fc8bdf210951b55a0ed4c7",
"text": "There are some useful comments about the tradeoffs of the decisions in front of you. Intertwined with the financial choices, hopefully you can see a map opening up. Make a little chart if it helps. Benefit and Cost. If you're looking for financial options, you will have to also add more columns to that chart: Option and Cost. An example is the comment on making connections with rich kids. Trust fund babies are everywhere in this country. Did you know any rich kids while growing up? How were those rich kids you knew of back then... in your school... in your town? How did they treat you? Were you ever invited to their parties or gatherings? Now there's an opportunity for the privilege to pay a lot of money to sit in a classroom next to them? Even in the early days of American history with merit based millionaires... tycoons who made it rich by the seat of their pants. At fancy dinner parties and soirees, a new term emerged to put each other again out of reach: old money (the deserving) and new money (uncultured climbers). That's my bias. You'll have some of your own. What is important to YOU has to come through because these days, the price tag of any higher education implies a considerable piece of your life's timeline will be committed to... something. Make sure you get what you feel is worth that commitment. Take stock of what has been said here by the others, but put a value on those choices and seriously consider what you're willing to pay for... and what you're not. There is no formula for your success as there's been thousands of exceptions... ESID (Every Situation is Different).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7f7cafcede60bd36387d7995a2bf706",
"text": "Bond MF/ETF comes in many flavour, one way to look at them is corporate, govt. (gilt/sovreign), money market (short term, overnight lending etc.), govt. backed bonds. The ETF/MFs that invest money in these are also different types. One way to evaluate an ETF/MF is to see where they invest your money. Corporate debts are by the highest coupon paying bonds, however, the chance of default is also greater, if you wish to invest in these, it is preferable to look at the ETF/MF's debt portfolio financial ratings (Moodies etc.). Govt. bonds are more stable and unless the govt. defaults (which happens more often than we would like to think), here also look for higher rating bonds portfolio that the fund/scheme carries. The govt. backed bonds are somewhat similar to sovreign bonds, however, these are issuesd by institutions which are backed by govt. (e.g. national railways, municipal bodies etc.), any fund/scheme that invests in these bonds could also be considered and similarly measured. The last are the short term money market related, which provides the least return but are very liquid. It is very difficult to answer how you should invest large sum on ETF/MFs that are bond oriented. However, from any investment perspective, it is better to spread your money. If I take your hypthetical case of 1M$, I would divide it into 100K$ pieces and invest in 10 different ETF/MF schemes of different flavour: Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e431c2f9d469ccc33da64dbcf88180e7",
"text": "Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5983c003ade5140773b9f348f02fc90",
"text": "I'll get to my answer in a moment, but first need to put focus on the two key components of bond prices: interest rates and credit risk. Suppose that the 10-year treasury has a coupon of 2% per year (it would be paid as 1% twice per year, in reality). If you own one contract of the bond which we suppose has a so-called face-value of $100, then this contract will over the ten years pay you a total of $20 in coupons, then $100 at redemption. So $120 in total. Would you therefore buy this 10-year treasury bond for $120, or more, or less? Well, if there were bank accounts around which were offering you an interest rate of 2% per year fixed for the next 10 years, then you could alternatively generate $120 from just $100 deposited now (if we assume that the interest paid is not put back in the account to earn 2% per year). Consequently, a price of $100 for the treasury would seem about right. However, suppose that you are not very confident that the banks that offer these accounts will even be around in 10 years time, maybe they will fail before that and you'll never get your money back. Then you might say to yourself that the above calculation is mathematically right, but not really a full representation of the different risks. And you conclude that maybe treasuries should be a bit more expensive, because they offer better credit risk than bank deposits. All of this just to show that the price of bonds is a comparative valuation of rates and credit: you need to know the general level of interest rates available in other investment products (even in stocks, I'd say), you need to have a feel for how much credit risk there is in the different investment products. Most people think that 'normally' interest rates are positive, because we are so familiar with the basic principle that: if I lend you some money then you need to pay me some interest. But in a world where everyone is worried about bank failures, people might prefer to effectively 'deposit' our savings with the US treasury (by buying their bonds) than to deposit their savings in the local bank. The US treasury will see this extra demand and put up the prices of their bonds (they are not stupid at the US treasury, you know!), so maybe the price of the 10-year treasury will go above $120. It could, right? In this scenario, the implied yield on the 10-year treasury is negative. There you go, yields have gone negative because of credit risk concerns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d9ab81d5f86195c4cce1c5fd44ed92f",
"text": "Bonds have multiple points of risk: This is part of the time value of money chapter in any finance course. Disclaimer - Duff's answer popped up as I was still doing the bond calculations. Similar to mine but less nerdy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "580b87fa9582f0ad27639ac85955d59a",
"text": "\"Looking at the list of bonds you listed, many of them are long dated. In short, in a rate rising environment (it's not like rates can go much lower in the foreseeable future), these bond prices will drop in general in addition to any company specific events occurred to these names, so be prepared for some paper losses. Just because a bond is rated highly by credit agencies like S&P or Moody's does not automatically mean their prices do not fluctuate. Yes, there is always a demand for highly rated bonds from pension funds, mutual funds, etc. because of their investment mandates. But I would suggest looking beyond credit ratings and yield, and look further into whether these bonds are secured/unsecured and if secured, by what. Keep in mind in recent financial crisis, prices of those CDOs/CLOs ended up plunging even though they were given AAA ratings by rating agencies because some were backed by housing properties that were over-valued and loans made to borrowers having difficulties to make repayments. Hence, these type of \"\"bonds\"\" have greater default risks and traded at huge discounts. Most of them are also callable, so you may not enjoy the seemingly high yield till their maturity date. Like others mentioned, buying bonds outright is usually a big ticket item. I would also suggest reviewing your cash liquidity and opportunity cost as oppose to investing in other asset classes and instruments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61e08f0d238c2474a7eb648aac96c339",
"text": "\"TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK. According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London. That sounds like a terrible deal to me. I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks. For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.). If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to \"\"lose everything\"\" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: \"\"I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.\"\" Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold. In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend. Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money? In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment? If not, you will be speculating, not investing. Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing. I don't recommend speculating.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a788530bc453279d6cb30eacfdb56dc7",
"text": "There are two main factors at play to consider. Also, realize that no advice is universal. You need to evaluate your exact situation and do what is best for you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
339ba0d37e95574caf38bfddb16ec601
|
Do credit checks affect credit scores?
|
[
{
"docid": "85b4e9a6d0ffa7e877775abbfd87f311",
"text": "There are two types of credit checks. First is the hard pull which is typically done when you apply for a credit line. The lender will hard pull your file and make his/her decision based on that. This affects your score negatively. You might lose few points for one hard inquiry. Second type is soft pull, which is done as a background check. Typically done by credit card companies to send you a pre-approved offer, or renting an apartment etc. This does not affect your score. One thing to keep in mind is a company will not do a hard pull without your permission, where as they can do soft pulls without you even knowing. Soft inquiries vs hard inquiries",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d52181990d4799e59fe11a2646d80fe",
"text": "\"Hard pulls you give your explicit permission to run do affect your credit. Soft pulls do not. While hard pulls affect your score, they don't affect it much. Maybe a couple few point for a little while. In your daily activities, it is inconsequential. If you are prepping to get a mortgage, you should be mindful. Similar type hard pulls in a certain time window will only count once, because it is assume you are shopping. For example, mortgage shopping will result in a lot of hard pulls, but if they are all done in a fortnight, they only count against once. (I believe the time window is actually a month, but I have always had two weeks in my head as the safe window.) The reason soft pulls don't matter is because businesses typically won't make credit decisions based on them. A soft pull is so a business can find a list of people to make offers to, but that doesn't mean they ACTUALLY qualify. Only the information in a hard pull will tell them that. I don't know, but I suspect it is more along the lines of \"\"give me everybody who is between 600 and 800 and lives in zip code 12344\"\" not \"\"what is series0ne's credit score?\"\" A hard pull will lower your score because of a scenario where you open up many many lines of credit in a short period of time. The credit scoring models assume (I am guessing) that you are going to implode. You are either attempting to cover obligations you can't handle, or you are about to create a bunch of obligations you can't handle. Credit should be used as a convenient method of payment, not a source of wealth. As such, each credit line you open in a short time lowers the score. You are disincentivized to continue opening lines, and lenders at the end of your credit line opening spree will see you as riskier than the first.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b6208d0c7eb4a079df32842d7a7bcb2",
"text": "I've seen my score dip a little bit after every hard pull. (Admittedly, a fako score.) You apply for credit or for a credit increase and your score is going to dip. Any check that is not intended to grant credit (either an existing creditor rechecking, or when you check your own credit) has no effect on your score. Likewise, a check done to screen for a solicitation have no effect as you are not trying to borrow. (Taking them up on the offer will normally cause a hit, though.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "323b38fed41115e09a03ec6940c82db9",
"text": "While one credit provider (or credit reference agency) might score you in one way, others may score you differently including treating different things that contribute to your score differently. Different credit providers may also not see all of your credit score as potentially some data may not be available to all credit suppliers. Further too many searches may trigger systems that recognise behavior that is a sign of possible fraudulent activity (such as applying for many items of credit in a short space of time). Whether this would directly affect a score or trigger manual checks is also likely to vary. In situations like this a person could have applied for (say) a dozen credit cards, with all the credit checks being performed before there is any credit history for any of those dozen cards.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c803561568b67f80cf544bb6e9a77e2a",
"text": "Sounds like a case of false causality. If somebody is taking the time to sign up at opt out sites, then that same person is probably making other smart decisions with their credit, causing scores to rise. Optoutprescreen.com does not help your score, the other actions taken might. People seeing different results can probably be tied to the timeframe they signed up. People who signed up then took care of their credit vs. people whose credit was already good and then signed up. A 10 pt bounce one way or the other is not significant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb45e2dbfb4bf22b69de6dcb3fdde61f",
"text": "Since no one else answered this part of your question yet: Checking your own credit score or report will not affect it in any way. It only hurts you when someone looks it up to run a credit check at your request for the purpose of possibly getting a loan, for example a car dealership. This only hurts it a tiny bit, and is not worth worrying about unless you are going to 20 different car dealerships who each do a check. However, it is a good idea not to let them run your credit until you are seriously ready to buy a car. In fact, it is better to just get financing somewhere else and not let them run it at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e200134de6ac28ef887fd77d06afc741",
"text": "\"As documented in MyFICO (http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/), there are several factors that affect credit scores. Payment history (35%) The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you've paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. As @Ben Miller mentioned, checking your credit report to determine whether or not late payments were reported to credit bureaus will give you a sense of whether or not this was effected. You mentioned several bounced payments, which certainly could have caused this. This would be my largest concern with a closed account, is to investigate why and what was reported to the bureaus, and in turn, other lenders. Also, since this has the highest impact on credit scores (35%), it's arguably, the most important. This is further detailed here, which details the public record and late payment effect on your score. Amounts owed (30%) Having credit accounts and owing money on them does not necessarily mean you are a high-risk borrower with a low FICO® Score....However, when a high percentage of a person's available credit is been used, this can indicate that a person is overextended, and is more likely to make late or missed payments. Given that this card was closed, whatever your credit limit was is now no longer added into your total credit limit. However, your utilization on that card is gone (assuming it gets paid off), depending on any other credit lines, and since you reported \"\"heavy use\"\" that could be a positive impact, though likely not. Length of credit history (15%) In general, a longer credit history will increase your FICO® Scores. However, even people who haven't been using credit long may have high FICO Scores, depending on how the rest of the credit report looks. Depending how old your card was, and particularly since this was your only credit card, it will likely impact your average age of credit lines, depending on other lines of credit (loans etc) you have open. This accounts for about 15% of your score, so not as large of an impact as the first two. Credit mix in use (10%) FICO Scores will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. Given that this was your only credit card, your loan mix has been reduced (possibly to none). New credit (10%) Research shows that opening several credit accounts in a short period of time represents a greater risk - especially for people who don't have a long credit history. This focuses on credit inquiries, which as you mentioned, you will likely have another either re-opening this credit card or opening another at some point in the future. Regardless, paying off the rest of that card is a priority, as interest rates on average credit cards are over 13%, and often higher (source). This rate comes into play when not paying the balance in full every month, and also as @Ben Miller suggested, I would not utilize a credit card without being able to pay it in full. It can often be a dangerous cycle of debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac6c8b4a19615ff7b2de20577028940c",
"text": "A credit card can be a long running line of credit that will help to boost your FICO score. However if you have student loans, a mortgage, or car payments those will work just as well. If you ever get to the point where you don't have any recent lines of credit, this may eventually end up hurting your score, but until then you really don't need any extras.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f434ca749d0d39db78849b606b457e7",
"text": "Paying off your loan in full will most likely not help your credit score, and could potentially even hurt it. Because car loans are installment loans (and thus differ from consumer credit), lenders really only like seeing that you responsibly pay off your loans on time. They don't really care if you pay it off early--lenders like seeing open lines of credit as long as you manage them well. The hard inquiry will simply lower your credit score a few points for up to two years. So, from a credit score perspective, you're really not going to help yourself in this scenario (although it's not like you're going to be plummeting yourself either).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ade3fe075a328cb9ac02c1c950bfead",
"text": "Credit scores in the U.S. are entirely based on information contained in your credit report. The details of your credit card transactions, such as where your individual purchases are from, the amount of individual purchases, refunds, chargebacks (successful or failed), etc. do not appear on your credit report. Therefore, they can have no impact on your credit score. According to creditsavvy.com.au, credit scores in Australia are based on similar information: the information in your credit history, credit profile, and credit applications. I don't see anything that would suggest that the details of your transactions would affect your credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "645d00f08ebb094975c2de03165614f2",
"text": "It is possible for an employer to check your credit score and it is legal. As long as you give them permission. You have every right to refuse BUT the employer also has the right to not give you a job. The reason is to get an overall feeling for your integrity, discipline, and lifestyle. People in debt are more likely to embezzle, etc. A low credit score can also indicate that you make poor choices in your financial and purchasing deals. If you are refused a job you are qualified under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to get a copy of your credit report. Source - Legal Match",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9be848b4054ffe1f5af563fcd6422f6",
"text": "\"First of all, whatever you do, DON'T PAY! Credit reporting agencies operate on aged records, and paying it now will most certainly not improve your score. For example, let's say that you had an unpaid debt that was reported as a \"\"charge-off\"\" to the credit bureaus. After, say, six months, the negative effect on your score is reduced. It is reduced even further after a year or two, and after two years, the negative effect on your score is negligible. Now, say you were to pay the debt after the two years. This would \"\"refresh\"\" the record, and show as a \"\"paid charge-off\"\". Sure, now it shows as paid, but it also shows the date of the record as being today, which increases the effect on your credit drastically. In other words, you would have just shot yourself in the foot, big-time. As others have noted, the best option is to dispute the item. If, for some reason, it isn't removed, you are allowed to submit an annotation to the item, explaining your side of the story. Anyone pulling your credit record would see this note, which can help you in some instances. In any case, these scam artists don't deserve your money. Finally, you should check who is the local ombusdman, and report this agent to them. She could lose her license for such a practice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7eb27e7e8dc2b2ddba0a88de6872d1c1",
"text": "\"In general, it is unusual for a credit check to occur when you are terminating a contract, since you are no longer requesting credit. If the credit check was a \"\"hard pull\"\" it will stay on your credit report for 2 years, but will only have an impact on your credit score for up to 12 months. If the check is a \"\"soft pull\"\" it has no impact on your credit score. Since you're past the 12 months boundary anyway, I wouldn't worry about it. That being said, please feel free to continue your investigation and report back if you can get Comcast to admit they performed the 2nd credit check. I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear their explanation for it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8be4f69d437e28f0d7e164653cab264",
"text": "If this chargeback failed then would it negatively affect my credit score? A credit score is a measure of how dependable of a borrower you are. Requesting a refund for not receiving goods not delivered as promised, whether it is successful or it fails, should not impact your credit score since it has no implications on the likelihood that you will pay back debts. The last time I used that gym was the 13th January 2017, and I rejoined on the 20th December, so I have used it for less than a month. Therefore I do not think I should have to pay for two months Keep in mind that you purchased a membership to the gym. Whether or not you actually use the gym you are liable to pay for every month that you retain the membership. Although it probably won't hurt to try to get a refund for the period where you didn't take advantage of your gym membership, you weren't actually charged for a service that you never received (like in the last case where they charged you after you cancelled your membership).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61a4a764a875af8f9f5691216a9ac4c0",
"text": "It may become difficult to rent a car or a hotel room. It may affect your ability to get a job. Some employers now check credit reports and disqualify candidates with a poor credit report. It may affect your ability to get a security clearance or professional bonding. It may affect your ability to find housing. Many landlords check credit reports. You may be harassed morning, noon, and night by collection agencies. This can be theoretically solved by declaring bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy court may force the sale of some of your assets to make payments towards your debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a99ef0c8cc1d1302d5e75e47d44c9610",
"text": "In some cases, especially but not only for subprime loans, they are actually testing whether you will lie to them. (Discovered this when working on a loan origination applicatíon for car dealers -- they explicitly did not want us to autocomplete some values because that might remind applicants that answers would be checked.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ca1cf69abe98d80c2924f3666f41462",
"text": "That is an opinion. I don't think so. Here are some differences: If you use credit responsibly and take the time to make sure the reporting agencies are being accurate, a good report can benefit you. So that isn't like a criminal record. What is also important to know is that in the United States, a credit report is about you, not for you. You are the product being sold. This is, in my opinion, and unfortunate situation but it is what it is. You will more than likely benefit for keeping a good report, even if you never use credit. There are many credit scores that can be calculated from your report; the score is just a number used to compare and evaluate you on a common set of criteria. If you think about it, that doesn't make sense. The score is a reflection of how you use credit. Having and using credit is a commitment. Your are committing to the lender that you will repay them as agreed. Your choice is who you decide to make agreements with. I personally find the business practices of my local credit union to be more palatable than the business practices of the national bank I was with. I chose to use credit provided by the credit union rather than by the bank. I am careful about where I take auto loans from, and to what extent I can control it, where I take home loans from. Since it is absolutely a commitment, you are personally responsible for making sure that you like who you are making commitments with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22f5aec3e608838bdd46b9d393d4ee05",
"text": "No, it won't affect your score until your statement is posted. Paying your bill before your statement is posted is actually a good way to keep your credit utilization low. If you're worried about high credit utilization negatively affecting your credit score, consider paying your bill several times a month to ensure that when your final monthly statement is posted, your utilization is still low. When my credit limit was very low while I was in college, I did this almost every month, and I've seen other sites recommend this practice as well. From creditkarma.com: The easiest way [to lower credit utilization] is to make credit card payments more than once a month so that your balance never gets too high. and creditcards.com: Consider making payments to creditors more than once each month. Otherwise, if you put a major expense -- like a new appliance -- on a credit card, even if you plan to pay it off, your FICO score may take a hit. The reason is that credit scores are calculated as a snapshot in time, so if that happens to be right after you charged a new $700 washing machine, your utilization ratio will look worryingly high. Remember, though, that it's best to have some balance on your card when your statement is posted (assuming you pay it off in full each month), because as the chart shows, 0% utilization is about as bad as utilization > 31-40%: Also, remember that credit utilization affects your credit score in real time, so if you have high utilization one month but a lower utilization the next month, the hit to your score will disappear once a statement with low utilization is posted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b677b2d0d99879a1ad3cf2e40d13b37a",
"text": "Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5d88e458830287053180e493dc06aab9
|
Why did the Swiss National Bank fix the EUR/CHF exchange rate at CHF 1.20?
|
[
{
"docid": "2977444346bc6bafa9b6942e71be2609",
"text": "\"Due to the issues in the Eurozone, many foreign investors were buying Swiss Francs as a hedge against a Euro devaluation. They were in effect treating the Franc like gold, silver or some other commodity with perceived intrinsic value. This causes huge problems from the Swiss, as the value of the Franc increased and their exports became more expensive for foreigners to purchase. Things were getting bad enough that the Swiss in some places were travelling to Germany to buy groceries! To enforce this \"\"fixing\"\" of the Franc, the Swiss Central Bank announced that they would buy foreign currency in unlimited quantities by printing Francs. In reality, just announcing that they were going to do this was sufficient to discourage foreign investors from loading up on Francs. NPR's Planet Money did a really good job covering this topic:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a01dfe65090fa6172f2f2c6f31f3b3d4",
"text": "\"As the European crisis worsened the Swiss Franc (CHF) was seen as a safe currency so Europeans attempted to exchange their Euros for Francs. This caused the Franc to appreciate in value, against the Euro, through the summer and fall of 2011. The Swiss government and Swiss Central Bank (SNB) believe mercantilism will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland. The Swiss central planners believe that having an abundance of export businesses in Switzerland will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland as the exporters sell their good and services abroad and pocket a bunch of cash. Thus, the central planners tend to favor exporters. From the article: At the start of the year, when exporters urged for government and SNB action, ... The Swiss Central bank continued to intervene in currency markets in 2011 to prevent the CHF from appreciating. This was done to prevent a decrease in export business. Finally after many failed attempts they announced the 1.20 peg in September. The central planners give little consideration to imports, however, since manufacturers in foreign countries don't vote or contribute to the campaign funds of the central planners in Switzerland. As the CHF strengthened many imported items became very cheap for Swiss citizens. This was of little concern to the central planners. Currencies are like other goods in a market in that they respond to supply and demand. Their value can change daily or even hourly based on the continually varying demands of people. This can cause the exchange rate to rise and fall against other currencies and goods. Central planners mistakenly believe that the price of certain market items (like currency) should not fluctuate. The believe there is some magical number that will cause the market to operate \"\"better\"\" or \"\"more correctly\"\". How does the SNB maintain the peg? They maintain the peg by printing Francs and purchasing euros.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3336d6fc35d673959c37b0dcb67d246c",
"text": "It's not. If you look at the page you link to and change dates, it's clear the rate changes a bit. 120.15 120.1 per hundred. The Swiss can keep the 1.200 as a target and if it's higher, sell agingst the euro to bring it down, if lower, buy. If the swiss experienced a serious financial crisis and their currency fell, they may not have the power to control it, if the rest of the world said it was worth less, you can be sure it will fall.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f18f3c5e4610ab3f40cdc8e509be5c33",
"text": "\"Bank for International Settlements (BIS) are the guys in Switzerland that came up with the Basel accords and gave us fun things like Capital Adequacy Ratios and kept bankers constipated for the last decade. It seems According to them, the bankers have been up to no good again and have been engaging in bank to bank currency swaps and derivative swaps in a manner that has allowed them to by pass regulatory safe guards and hide the debt off balance sheet, and a situation is occurring where they have to pay back their debt before the debt that is owed to them matures and that could lead to a credit crunch and liquidity crisis. The trigger they feel for this could be a rise in inflation in the US which would lead to the Fed raising rates or an unforeseen shock to the dollar that would tighten the market. \"\"Signs of excess are visible everywhere. “Corporate debt is now considerably higher than it was pre-crisis. Leverage indicators have reached levels reminiscent of those that prevailed during previous corporate credit booms. A growing share of firms face interest expenses exceeding earnings before interest and taxes,” said the report. Up shit creek and its in danger of popping\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "411a0d4eb5c817cf575e82c2ed0d5c25",
"text": "It seems possible if the Euro is partially/entirely unwound that policies could be enacted to prohibit exactly this behavior, otherwise what will stop outflow to the stronger countries on a massive scale? (Thus amplifying the resulting decade-long clusterfuck) We've never had this situation in Europe before, and already for Greece and Spain there are suggestions to instigate withdrawal controls. It doesn't seem far fetched to imagine retroactive controls placed on private deposits in newly-foreign-currency banks. If I were concerned about the Euro's collapse I'd be more inclined to move assets out of the eurozone entirely",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e83d0a17d6016f0a1252a86909c2d29e",
"text": "\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \"\"root value\"\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a197c559e154cf6363be0698879082be",
"text": "\"As a Venezuelan who used to buy USD, I believe there is not better explanation than the one given to someone who actually lives and works here in Venezuela. Back in 1998 when Hugo Chavez took the presidency, we had a good economy. Fast forward 10 years laters and you could see how poor management, corruption and communist measurements had wreaked havoc in our Economy. It was because most of the money (USD) coming in Venezuela were not invested here but instead, given away to \"\"pimp countries\"\" like Cuba. Remember, communism lasts while you have money. Back then we had an Oil Barrel going over 100$ and crazy amounts of money were coming in the country. However, little to no money was invested in the country itself. That is why some of the richest people with bank account in Swiss are Venezuelans who stole huge amounts of Oil Money. I know this is a lot to take in, but all of this led to Venezuelan economy being the worst in The American Continent and because there is not enough money inside the country to satisfy the inner market, people would pay overprice to have anything that is bought abroad. You have to consider that only a very small amount of people can actually buy USD here in Venezuela. Back in 2013 I was doing it, I could buy about 80 usd/month with my monthly income. However, nowdays that's nearly impossible for about 99% of Venezuelans. To Illustrate. Minimum wage = 10.000 bolivares / month Black market exchange rate (As of January 2016) = 900bs per 1usd 10.000/900 = 11,11 usd. <<< that is what about 50% of Venezuelans earn every month. That's why this happens: http://i.imgur.com/dPOC2e3.jpg The guy is holding a huge stack of money of the highest Venezuelan note, which he got from exchanging only 100 usd. I am a computer science engineer, the monthly income for someone like me is about 30.000 bolivares --- so that is about 34$ a month. oh dear! So finally, answering your question Q: Why do people buy USD even at this unfavorable rate? A: There are many reasons but being the main 2 the following 1.- Inflation in Venezuela is crazy high. The inflation from 2014-2015 was 241%. Which means that having The Venezuelan currency (Bolivares) in your bank account makes no sense... in two weeks you won't be able to buy half of the things you used to with the same amount of money. 2.- A huge amount of Venezuelans dream with living abroad (me included) why, you ask? well sir, it is certain that life in this country is not the best: I hope you can understand better why people in 3rd world countries and crappy economies buy USD even at an unfavorable rate. The last question was: Q: Why would Venezuela want to block the sale of dollars? A: Centralized currency management is an Economic Measure that should last 6 months tops. (This was Argentina's case in 2013) but at this point, reverting that would take quite a few years. However, Turukawa's wikipedia link explains that very well. Regards.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1efb7090aedbe05bd825078862807e9",
"text": "It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value. Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates). You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd. If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd. Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8fb271efafbf0a477901f22bb9c94d3",
"text": "\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d91a22f26eca67e948746de9b9fc394",
"text": "You might want to see this question and its answers. If it was me, I'd prefer to exchange the currency in Germany. Why? When you are in the US you will be on vacation. It does not seem fun to spend vacation time in a bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48f0b8daf92c94325fe3993451500c40",
"text": "The United States Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates should be low. (They think it may help the economy. The details matter little here though.) It will enforce this low rate by buying Treasury bonds at this very low interest rate. (Bonds are future money, so this means they pay a lot of money up front, for very little interest in the future. The Fed will pay more than anyone who offers less money up front, so they can set the price as long as they're willing to buy.) At the end of the day, Treasury bonds pay nearly no interest. Since there's little money to be made with Treasuries, people who want better-than-zero returns will bid up the current-price of any other bonds or similar loan-like instruments to get what whatever rate of return that they can. There's really no more than one price for money; you can think of the price of those bonds as basically (Treasury rate + some modifier based on the risk) percent. I realize thinking about bond prices is weird and different than other prices (you're measuring future-money using present-money and it's easy to be confused) and assure you it ultimately makes sense :) Anyway. Your savings account money has to compete with everyone else willing to lend money to banks. Everyone-else lends money for peanuts, so you get peanuts on your savings account too. Your banking is probably worth more to your bank on account of your check-card payment processing fees (collected from the merchant) than from the money they make lending out your savings (notice how many places have promotional rates if you make your direct deposits or use your check card to make a purchase N times a month). In Europe, it's similar, except you've got a different central bank. If Europe's bank operated radically differently for an extended period of time, you'd expect to see a difference in the exchange rates which would ultimately make the returns from investing in those currencies pretty similar as well. Such a change may show up domestically as inflation in the country with the loose-money policy, and internationally as weakness against other currencies. There's really only one price for money around the entire world. Any difference boils down to a difference in (perceived) risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "883cafa8f5663e43e4c96d54317ed88f",
"text": "Banks in certain countries are offering such facility. However I am not aware of any Bank in Hungary offering this. So apart from maintaining a higher amount in HUF, there by reducing the costs [and taking the volatility risks]; there aren't many options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e6e5b8d781282d4e55d3ec17f65a88c",
"text": "As others said, Greece cannot set.monetary policy because that is the job of the ECB. If you meant fiscal policy, then you are right: their high levels of debt plus their default this year make it so that they cannot unilaterally borrow more money to run a deficit as the private market will not lend to them. This makes them dependent on a bailout.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ff17969f7fe94d417aea463bb9a3d9e",
"text": "Certainly. My old professor of international relations used to say that if we wanted to understand complex issues, what we really needed to do was try to follow the lines of national interest. Here it seems like the Germans are acting against the national interest of the entire rest of the Eurozone, only for their narrow short-term interest. Its disgusting!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04570ba774855f975b423ad53c6b78a0",
"text": "Yes, they need expansionary monetary policy to help them with their internal devaluation. However, this involves leaving the euro. So there are additional costs to the normal costs of inflation, they are experiencing some of these costs right now as capital is fleeing the country and it will get worse if/when they really leave. It's also worth keeping in mind that Greece doesn't have very good institutions (it's why they are in this mess in the first place), so it's hard to say that they'll be able to leave the euro and devalue without also trying out policies that will lead to hyperinflation. Internal devaluation is possible without expansionary monetary policy, but it takes some time and the capital flight in anticipation of taxes/neo-drachmas means that meanwhile there is also little investment in the economy in the meantime.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54be78b2e13dda55e7fb0871c1cc7b76",
"text": "\"How Italians have a general mistrust in the euro and the ECB makes me crazy. The country with over 2000 billion in debt, that got its ass saved by quantitative easing done by the European Central Bank (iirc, 46% of bonds bought were of the Italian debt). No politicians says he wants to reduce the debt, no, the problem is again something \"\"outside\"\". How about reforming Italian banks and their infamous credits they're still not writing off as losses because of politics? How about reducing the debt? How each and everyone who has a bank account in Italy isn't grateful to Draghi is a mystery to me. The consequences of driving a G8 country, the 3rd largest economy in the EU, to the ground because of moronic politicians who can't for the love of their life plan long term are horrible. It's not like the fucks given by politicians are hidden in this new currency system. FFS. Quick edit: problem number 1, 2 and 3 of Italy is to reduce its debt. Il resto è noia, everything else is boredom.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "455ceacc14850079dda8e7f4e7bd571d",
"text": "I've been short the Euro for several months now against the USD (could be various others as well). I got in at 1.42, sold on a bounce up to 1.36, bought back at 1.38 and now will probably ride it out lower. Regardless of whether or not the Eurozone breaks up, I see it breaking through the 1.30 mark in the near-term. After that, I'm not sure how low it goes, but there is certainly potential for it to head towards 1/1. In order to reduce the burden, the ECB needs to devalue the currency. Although Germany really doesn't want this due to their anti-inflationary ideology, if Italy comes crashing down, so does France. When France goes, Germany goes into a deep recession if not a depression. They have to devalue some. As for a collapse, I have no idea. It probably depends on how many (if any) countries retain the currency and who they are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b183651f1a0a7f534883338f1b88285",
"text": "Some comments above are inaccurate. Advertised interest rates for deposits and savings in Russia (from Russian banks) are generally for Ruble (RUB) denominated accounts; however, USD and EUR denominated accounts still offer favorable interest rates when compared to Western counterparts. For example, Sberbank advertises these Annual Interest Rates: RUB — 8.79–11.52% USD — 2.05–5.31% EUR — 2.05–5.21%",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4c470f19321205d7b096ea0323d518f1
|
Is gold really an investment or just a hedge against inflation?
|
[
{
"docid": "53797b151ae0daf43edf5e83c4fc64bd",
"text": "The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ac2209c513ee6c964e7277b426315ba",
"text": "Gold is a commodity. It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such. In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted. A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it. There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities. Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high. A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out. Just like any other business. High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation. It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury. There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation. If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised. You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government. Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing. If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so. And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bbe2c6b9aa77bb5daa6f4cc56c5fdf4",
"text": "Another answer to this question occurred to me as I started learning more about historical uses for gold etc. Perhaps it's a crackpot idea, but I'm going to float it anyway to see what you folks think. Investing in Gold is an indirect investment in the Economy and GDP of the nation of India. To that extent is it only a hedge against inflation, so long as the indian economy grows at a more rapid rate than your local inflation rate. Fact, India currently consumes more than 1/3 of gold production, predominantly in the form of Jewelry. And their demand has been growing rapidly, up 69% just between 2009 and 2010 alone. I can't find too many historial consumption numbers for India, but when you look at past articles on this subject, you see phrases like 'one forth' and '20%' being used only a few years go to describe India's consumption levels. Fact, India has virtually no domestic sources of gold. India’s handful of gold mines produce about 2.5 tonnes of the metal each year, a fraction of the country’s annual consumption of about 800 tonnes. Fact. Indian Culture places high value on gold as a visible demonstration of wealth. Particularly in situations such In Indian weddings where the bride brings in gold to show her family's status and wealth and it forms part of the dowry given to bride. It is believed that a bride wearing 24k gold on their wedding to bring luck and happiness throughout the married life. Fact, the recent trends in outsourcing, Indian citizens working abroad sending money home, etc have all lead to a influx of foreign cash to the Indian economy and explosive GDP growth. See the following chart and compare the period of 2000-current with a chart showing the price of gold in other answer here. Notice how the curves parallel each other to a large degree Potentially unfounded conclusion drawn from above numbers. The rapid growth of the Indian economy, coupled with a rich cultural tradition that values gold as a symbol of wealth, along with a sudden rise in 'wealthy' people due to the economy and influx of foreign cash, has resulted in skyrocketing demand for gold from India, and this large 'consumption' demand is the most likely explanation for the sudden rise in the price of gold over the last several years. Investors then jump on the 'rising price bandwagon' as especially does anyone that can make a profit from selling gold to those seeking to get on said bandwagon. As such, as long as indian cultural tradition remains unchanged, and their economy remains strong, the resulting increasing demand for gold will sustain current and perhaps increased prices. Should there be any sudden collapse in the Indian GDP, gold will likely tumble in parallel. disclaimer: not an expert, just observations based off the data I've seen, there may be other parts to the picture of 'gold demand' that I've not considered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f53751a09601e4815ee181201e20979",
"text": "\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f82eef360c642b80cbd1041bd8dcd02",
"text": "\"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \"\"modified\"\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f7068685da6d41e4de33c1724134345",
"text": "From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf90b0dcaa1f707395818029b671ef11",
"text": "\"Over time, gold has mainly a hedge against inflation, based on its scarcity value. That is, unless finds some \"\"killer app\"\" for it that would also make it a good investment. The \"\"usual\"\" ones, metallurgical, electronic, medicine, dental, don't really do the trick. It should be noted that gold performs its inflation hedge function over a long period of time, say $50-$100 years. Over shorter periods of time, it will spike for other reasons. The latest classic example was in 1979-80, and the main reason, in my opinion, was the Iranian hostage crisis (inflation was secondary.) This was a POLITICAL risk situation, but one that was not unwarranted. An attack on 52 U.S. hostages (diplomats, no less), was potenially an attack on the U.S. dollar. But gold got so pricey that it lost its \"\"inflation hedge\"\" function for some two decades (until about 2000). Inflation has not been a notable factor in 2011. But Mideastern political risk has been. Witness Egypt, Libya, and potentially Syria and other countries. Put another way, gold is less of an investment that a \"\"hedge.\"\" And not just against inflation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "abbd8527e5c47df542b88717fd1bc8e9",
"text": "\"Okay - but that's about gold as an investment in today's world, and during an extremely unstable financial situation. Many other types of investments could be used similarly. Those who advocate gold as a hedge don't advocate buying it during a crisis, they advocate keeping some as part of an investment strategy... but again, that's gold as gold, not gold as currency. Leveraging your investments based on current financial situations is what investing is about. Gold as a medium for currency is a totally different thing. What you just described would be called \"\"arbitrage\"\" - in moving markets (or other situations I guess) looking for no-lose situations where you can trade things around and increase your net value doing it. it helps stabilize markets - as people take advantage of this situation it counters the effect and self-corrects... think about it ;)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c8e924a6429b9e56cd3a540c31c768",
"text": "\"There's too much here for one question. So no answer can possibly be comprehensive. I think little of gold for the long term. I go to MoneyChimp and see what inflation did from 1974 till now. $1 to $4.74. So $200 inflates to $950 or so. Gold bested that, but hardly stayed ahead in a real way. The stock market blew that number away. And buying gold anytime around the 1980 runup would still leave you behind inflation. As far as housing goes, I have a theory. Take median income, 25% of a month's pay each month. Input it as the payment at the going 30yr fixed rate mortgage. Income rises a bit faster than inflation over time, so that line is nicely curved slightly upward (give or take) but as interest rates vary, that same payment buys you far more or less mortgage. When you graph this, you find the bubble in User210's graph almost non-existent. At 12% (the rate in '85 or so) $1000/mo buys you $97K in mortgage, but at 5%, $186K. So over the 20 years from '85 to 2005, there's a gain created simply by the fact that money was cheaper. No mania, no bubble (not at the median, anyway) just the interest rate effect. Over the same period, inflation totaled 87%. So the same guy just keeping up with inflation in his pay could then afford a house that was 3.5X the price 20 years prior. I'm no rocket scientist, but I see few articles ever discussing housing from this angle. To close my post here, consider that homes have grown in size, 1.5%/yr on average. So the median new home quoted is actually 1/3 greater in size in 2005 than in '85. These factors all need to be normalized out of that crazy Schiller-type* graph. In the end, I believe the median home will always tightly correlate to the \"\"one week income as payment.\"\" *I refer here to the work of professor Robert Schiller partner of the Case-Schiller index of home prices which bears his name.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a39e6c7e315edaca02de2944834706e6",
"text": "I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1df8591be32d4babf6b7a50426ebacda",
"text": "Yes - it's called the rate of inflation. The rate of return over the rate of inflation is called the real rate of return. So if a currency experiences a 2% rate of inflation, and your investment makes a 3% rate of return, your real rate of return is only 1%. One problem is that inflation is always backwards-looking, while investment returns are always forward-looking. There are ways to calculate an expected rate of inflation from foreign exchange futures and other market instruments, though. That said, when comparing investments, typically all investments are in the same currency, so the effect of inflation is the same, and inflation makes no difference in a comparative analysis. When comparing investments in different currencies, then the rate of inflation may become important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc918d7d360e8385f3ff962b9230f3a",
"text": "\"The difficulty with investing in mining and gold company stocks is that they are subject to the same market forces as any other stocks, although they may whether those forces better in a crisis than other stocks do because they are related to gold, which has always been a \"\"flight to safety\"\" move for investors. Some investors buy physical gold, although you don't have to take actual delivery of the metal itself. You can leave it with the broker-dealer you buy it from, much the way you don't have your broker send you stock certificates. That way, if you leave the gold with the broker-dealer (someone reputable, of course, like APMEX or Monex) then you can sell it quickly if you choose, just like when you want to sell a stock. If you take delivery of a security (share certificate) or commodity (gold, oil, etc.) then before you can sell it, you have to return it to broker, which takes time. The decision has much to do with your investing objectives and willingness to absorb risk. The reason people choose mutual funds is because their money gets spread around a basket of stocks, so if one company in the fund takes a hit it doesn't wipe out their entire investment. If you buy gold, you run the risk (low, in my opinion) of seeing big losses if, for some reason, gold prices plummet. You're \"\"all in\"\" on one thing, which can be risky. It's a judgment call on your part, but that's my two cents' worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea59ac7efc1564bd9772aec0fc73a5c",
"text": "\"It's not clear that anything needs to go up if gold goes down. In a bubble, asset prices can just collapse, without some other asset increasing to compensate. Economies are not a zero-sum game. On the other hand, gold may fall when people decide they don't need to hoard some store of value that, to their minds, never changes. It could very well indicate that there is more confidence in the broader economy. I am not a gold bug, so I don't much see the point in \"\"investing\"\" in something that is non-productive and also inedible, but to each his own.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51f09d8025fb86f43c74dfdb82941039",
"text": "\"Two points: One, yes -- the price of gold has been going up. [gold ETF chart here](http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1349467200000&chddm=495788&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSEARCA:IAU&ntsp=0&ei=PQhvUMjiAZGQ0QG5pQE) Two, the US has confiscated gold in the past. They did it in the 1930s. Owning antique gold coins is stupid because you're paying for gold + the supply / demand imbalance forced upon that particular coin by the coin collector market. If you want to have exposure to gold in your portfolio, the cheapest way is through an ETF. If you want to own physical gold because a) it's shiny or b) you fear impending economic collapse -- you're probably better off with bullion from a reputable dealer. You can buy it in grams or ounces -- you can also buy it in coins. Physical gold will generally cost you a little more than the spot price (think 5% - 10%? -- not really sure) but it can vary wildly. You might even be able to buy it for under the spot price if you find somebody that isn't very bright willing to sell. Buyer beware though -- there are lots of shady folks in the \"\"we buy gold\"\" market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1780c956b6e79156a96d46a6b5e1ce97",
"text": "\"Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not \"\"safe\"\"; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4716c4aba4846bb7b7f17bbdd83f777e",
"text": "I will just try to come up with a totally made up example, that should explain the dynamics of the hedge. Consider this (completely made up) relationship between USD, EUR and Gold: Now lets say you are a european wanting to by 20 grams of Gold with EUR. Equally lets say some american by 20 grams of Gold with USD. Their investment will have the following values: See how the europeans return is -15.0% while the american only has a -9.4% return? Now lets consider that the european are aware that his currency may be against him with this investment, so he decides to hedge his currency. He now enters a currency-swap contract with another person who has the opposite view, locking in his EUR/USD at t2 to be the same as at t0. He now goes ahead and buys gold in USD, knowing that he needs to convert it to EUR in the end - but he has fixed his interestrate, so that doesn't worry him. Now let's take a look at the investment: See how the european now suddenly has the same return as the American of -9.4% instead of -15.0% ? It is hard in real life to create a perfect hedge, therefore you will most often see that the are not totally the same, as per Victors answer - but they do come rather close.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eefe526e99c585f680907b8039439560",
"text": "Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f28edc15e301af581cc4338182d9b599",
"text": "Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd76bf49f90e365dbefa44a87fbeae98",
"text": "You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08cec8c13d6cc51c6f85f6b481c17691",
"text": "Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eea277229a31bb3a52cb07a41ce3bd35",
"text": "\"If you're really a part-time worker, then there are some simple considerations.... The remote working environment, choice of own hours, and non-guarantee of work availability point to your \"\"part-time\"\" situation being more like a consultancy, and that would normally double or triple the gross hourly rate. But if they're already offering or paying you a low hourly figure, they are unlikely to give you consultant rates.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a66e3822a21d40ef4324dcc5f0a33901",
"text": "This makes a lot of sense. So yeah you can’t cheat the FTC anymore but users also can’t cheat you anymore. Essentially that’s what you’re saying right? Also I say “you” meaning dishonest marketers of which the world is full of. I wasn’t accusing you of being dishonest. I used to work for a company that made apps and we did all of our marketing on Instagram because it was the only thing that had a return on investment. It was dishonest but from the numbers it was literally the only thing that worked for what we could afford as an app development start up because app development certainly isn’t cheap or fast.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9a35666ecda9ecad84cf9dc1ffa6a8d2
|
What is the basis of an asset that is never depreciated?
|
[
{
"docid": "98a515cbd0567da8e4039af7b5522f27",
"text": "That's tricky, actually. First, as the section 1015 that you've referred to in your other question says - you take the lowest of the fair market value or the actual donor basis. Why is it important? Consider these examples: So, if the relative bought you a brand new car and you're the first title holder (i.e.: the relative paid, but the car was registered directly to you) - you can argue that the basis is the actual money paid. In essence you got a money gift that you used to purchase the car. If however the relative bought the car, took the title, and then drove it 5 miles to your house and signed the title over to you - the IRS can argue that the car basis is the FMV, which is lower because it is now a used car that you got. You're the second owner. That may be a significant difference, just by driving off the lot, the car can lose 10-15% of its value. If you got a car that's used, and the donor gives it to you - your basis is the fair market value (unless its higher than the donor's basis - in which case you get the donor's basis). You always get the lowest basis for losses (and depreciation is akin to a loss). Now consider the situation when your relative is a business owner and used the car for business. He didn't take the depreciation, but he was entitled to. IRS can argue that the fact that he didn't take is irrelevant and reduce the donor's basis by the allowable depreciation. That may bring your loss basis to below the FMV. I suggest you take it to a tax professional licensed in your state who will check all the facts and circumstances of your situation. Your relative might be slapped with a gift tax as well, if the car FMV is above certain amount (currently the exemption is $14000).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d27453d9a8051fc9c96ed1dfb6f78f07",
"text": "Another disadvantage is the inability to value commodities in an accounting sense. In contrast with stocks, bonds and real estate, commodities don't generate cash flows and so any valuation methodology is by definition speculative. But as rhaskett notes, there are diversification advantages. The returns for gold, for instance, tend to exhibit low/negative correlation with the performance of stocks. The question is whether the diversification advantage, which is the primary reason to hold commodities in a multi-asset class portfolio through time, overcomes the disadvantages? The answer... maybe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c73a18824f53eda9fa671f3abd73034",
"text": "A perpetuity in the mathematical context is the equation in your link. A perpetuity in the legal sense is a liability that never matures, presumably paying endlessly, except for a banknote that pays nothing. An example would be UK war bonds during WWII. Real estate can be modeled like a perpetuity for convenience, but it is not a legal obligation to pay forever if one excludes taxes. If one starts with capital and ends with a perpetuity, one has bought a perpetuity. If one starts out with nothing and ends with capital by way of a perpetuity, one has sold a perpetuity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "605d66518dbbd354973c4ec0e56f8918",
"text": "\"An endowment is a large chunk of capital (i.e. money) held by a university or other nonprofit. It is meant to hold its value forever against inflation, and invested to generate income: from interest, dividends and appreciation. They seem like a contradiction: closely scrutinized by Boards of Directors, managed to a high and accountable standard, closely regulated -- and yet, invested aggressively for growth: ignoring short-term volatility to get the highest growth long-term. The law, UPMIFA (P for Prudent), requires growth investment, and says taking up to 7% of current value per year is prudent, even in down times when total value is shrinking. On average, this lets the endowment grow with inflation. 7% is the high end of \"\"prudent\"\". An endowment is watched, and the taken income is adjusted to keep the endowment healthy. 5% is very safe, assuming the endowment must pace inflation until the heat death of the universe. If you plan to die someday, drawing an extra 1-2% is appropriate. There you go. Invest like a university endowment, and count on up to 7% per year of income. That's $21,000 a year. There'll be taxes, but the long-term capital gain rate at $21,000/year is pretty low. That's pretty tight, but possible if your idea of entertaining is Netflix. It would work very effectively for #VanLife, or the British version, living on a Narrowboat.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b18ebf162c506027217e7bf9b98aa95",
"text": "Never borrow money to purchase a depreciating asset. Especially don't borrow money that has penalties attached.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d6b8b176414df94cb82c6b650b20647",
"text": "To me this sounds like a transaction, where E already owns a company worth 400k and can therefore pocket the money from D and give D 25% of the profits every year. There is nothing objective (like a piece of paper) that states the company is worth 400K. It is all about perceived value. Some investors may think it is worth something because of some knowledge they may have. Heck, the company could be worth nothing but the investor could have some sentimental value associated to it. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? It is worth what someone pays for it when they pay for it. I repeat- the 400K valuation is subjective. In return the investor is getting 25% ownership of the product or company. The idea is that when someone has ownership, they have a vested interest in it being successful. In that case, the investor will do whatever he/she can to improve the chances of success (in addition to supplying the 100K capital). For instance, the investor will leverage their network or perhaps put more money into it in the future. Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash? Perhaps. It is an asset that may later be used to fund inventory (for instance). ... and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? No. See what I said about the valuation just being perception. Note that the above analysis doesn't apply to all Dragons Den deals. It only applies to situations where capital is exchanged for ownership in the form of equity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db891ceccd6d732350b0ba8b68d85cfe",
"text": "\"This forum is not intended to be a discussion group, but I would like to add a different perspective, especially for @MrChrister, on @littleadv's rhetorical question \"\"... estates are after-tax money, i.e.: income tax has been paid on them, yet the government taxes them again. Why?\"\" For the cash in an estate, yes, that is after-tax money, but consider other assets such as stocks and real estate. Suppose a rich man bought stock in a small computer start-up company at $10 a share about 35 years ago, and that stock is now worth $500 a share. The man dies and his will bequeaths the shares to his son. According to US tax law, the son's basis in the shares is $500 per share, that is, if the son sells the shares, his capital gains are computed as if he had purchased the shares for $500 each. The son pays no taxes on the inheritance he receives. The deceased father's last income tax return (filed by the executor of the father's will) does not list the $490/share gain as a capital gain since the father did not sell the stock (the gain is what is called an unrealized gain), and so there is no income tax due from the father on the $490/share. Now, if there is no estate tax whatsoever, the father's estate tax return pays no tax on that gain of $490 per share either. Would this be considered an equitable system? Should the government not tax the gain at all? It is worth noting that it would be possible for a government to eliminate estate taxes entirely, but instead have tax laws that say that unrealized gains on the deceased's property would be taxed (as capital gains) on the deceased's final tax return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4902a1a39912a3dd74a0f67c18da2907",
"text": "\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fe6793ff8919f9399c7387c88a30ead",
"text": "\"Tax cost basis is the amounts you've spent on developing the product which you hasn't deducted yet from previous income. From what you've described, it sounds like your cost basis is $0. Time you spent is not your cost, since time is not money. The fact that you might have earned something if working at that time but you didn't - is irrelevant, because potential income that you didn't get is not a loss that you took. Someone mentioned \"\"intangibles\"\" in the comments - that would be the line of thought of the buyer. However, since you didn't buy the product but rather developed it, you can only deduct the actual expenses you've incurred, that you haven't deducted so far.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25497847731ab66954773b2b2e1e8fb1",
"text": "\"For the USA part of the equation the \"\"fair market value\"\" is the value at the time you inherited it (time of death), and thus there is no capital gain.\"",
"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": "127853d48965a4dfdfc80c462e62052c",
"text": "Some of the other answers mention this, but I want to highlight it with a personal anecdote. I have a property in a mid-sized college town in the US. Its current worth about what we paid for it 9 years ago. But I don't care at all because I will likely never sell it. That house is worth about $110,000 but rents for $1500 per month. It is a good investment. If you take rental income and the increase in equity from paying down the mortgage (subtracting maintenance) the return on the down payment is very good. I haven't mentioned the paper losses involved in depreciation as that's fairly US specific: the laws are different in other jurisdictions but for at least the first two years we showed losses while making money. So there are tax advantages as well (at least currently, those laws also change over time). There is a large difference between investing in a property for appreciation and investing for income. Even in those categories there are niches that can vary widely: commercial vs residential, trendy, vacation/tourist areas, etc. Each has their place, but ensure that you don't confuse a truism meant for one type of real estate investing as being applicable to real estate investing in general.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8609add874cab91d7b7d8b8d9ef26692",
"text": "\"Straight Line Depreciation is the easiest method of depreciation, don't over think it. Straight Line = (Assets Cost - Assets Salvage Value)/Useful life In this case the Straight Line is $2m per year, it is not culmulative unless you are looking at accumulated depreciation account on the balance sheet. Here is a schedule of the depreciation: * Year 1 - $2m * Year 2 - $2m * Year 3 - $2m * Year 4 - $2m * Year 5 - $2m See, can't get much easier than that! Once you get into more complicated questions they'll throw tax rates at you and ask about cash flows, or the NPV of the cash flows. You need to take into account the fact that the Depreciation is not a \"\"cash expense\"\" but it does affect cash flow by reducing the taxable income of the project. Also, you need to consider the fact that the asset will be sold in year 5 and the value will need to be part of your cash flow and NPV calculations. I hope this was helpful, if not I'll try to do my best answering any other questions. Good Luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86d74c5991c11c86aa22cd43a0a6a4f4",
"text": "\"Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting. By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is \"\"very similar\"\" to Asset. You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0. You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset. Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet. You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting. Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fe8deec27a0ed2312c70246cbca7f76",
"text": "\"There's an old saying: \"\"Never invest in anything that eats or needs maintenance.\"\" This doesn't mean that a house or a racehorse or private ownership of your own company is not an investment. It just points out that constant effort is needed on your part, or on the part of somebody you pay, just to keep it from losing value. Common stock, gold, and money in the bank are three things you can buy and leave alone. They may gain or lose market value, but not because of neglect on your part. Buying a house is a complex decision. There are many benefits and many risks. Other investments have benefits and risks too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b622bc6d4c5c0e320f76c82c2ef0411a",
"text": "\"SEC filings do not contain this information, generally. You can find intangible assets on balance sheets, but not as detailed as writing down every asset separately, only aggregated at some level (may be as detailed as specifying \"\"patents\"\" as a separate line, although even that I wouldn't count on). Companies may hold different rights to different patents in different countries, patents are being granted and expired constantly, and unless this is a pharma industry or a startup - each single patent doesn't have a critical bearing on the company performance.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
81af0116daa2c3c215589c1c26ad4a59
|
To rebalance or not to rebalance
|
[
{
"docid": "1bea3acc878bbc52ef38fcc73324835a",
"text": "\"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91ac0fed77d4e280fa2c49c0ad065fa6",
"text": "\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4c28ac3383dd84dadb68bc2235db2d5",
"text": "\"Rebalancing is, simply, a way of making sure your risk/reward level is where you want it to be. Let's say you've decided that your optimal mix is 50% stocks and 50% bonds (or 50% US stocks, 50% international, or 30/30/30 US large-cap/US small-cap/US midcap...). So you buy $100 of each, but over time, the prices will of course fluctuate. At the end of the year, the odds that the ratio of the value of your investments is equal to the starting ratio is nil. So you rebalance to get your target mix again. Rebalance too often and you end up paying a lot in transaction fees. Rebalance not often enough and you end up running outsize risk. People who tell you that you should rebalance to make money, or use \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or think there is any upside to rebalancing outside of risk management are making assumptions about the market (mean regressing or some such thing) that generally you should avoid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d111d0a34e4c97ece2156e010e6b1b4e",
"text": "\"In theory, investing is not gambling because the expected outcome is not random; people are expecting positive returns, on average, with some relationship to risk undertaken and economic reality. (More risk = more returns.) Historically this is true on average, that assets have positive returns, and riskier assets have higher returns. Also it's true that stock market gains roughly track economic growth. Valuation (current price level relative to \"\"fundamentals\"\") matters - reversion to the mean does exist over a long enough time. Given a 7-10 year horizon, a lot of the variance in ending price level can be explained by valuation at the start of the period. On average over time, business profits have to vary around a curve that's related to the overall economy, and equity prices should reflect business profits. The shorter the horizon, the more random noise. Even 1 year is pretty short in this respect. Bubbles do exist, as do irrational panics, and milder forms of each. Investing is not like a coin flip because the current total number of heads and tails (current valuation) does affect the probability of future outcomes. That said, it's pretty hard to predict the timing, or the specific stocks that will do well, etc. Rebalancing gives you an objective, automated, unemotional way to take advantage of all the noise around the long-term trend. Rather than trying to use judgment to identify when to get in and out, with rebalancing (and dollar cost averaging) you guarantee getting in a bit more when things are lower, and getting out a bit more when things are higher. You can make money from prices bouncing around even if they end up going nowhere and even if you can't predict the bouncing. Here are a couple old posts from my blog that talk about this a little more:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fff57d0c07b6259311cbbb60168e3037",
"text": "This answer will assume you know more math than most. An ideal case: For the point of argument, first consider the following admittedly incorrect assumptions: 1) The prices of all assets in your investment universe are continuously differentiable functions of time. 2) Investor R (for rebalance) continuously buys and sells in order to maintain a constant proportion of each of several investments in his portfolio. 3) Investor P (for passive) starts with the same portfolio as R, but neither buys nor sells Then under the assumptions of no taxes or trading costs, it is a mathematical theorem that investor P's portfolio return fraction will be the weighted arithmetic mean of the return fractions of all the individual investments, whereas investor R will obtain the weighted geometric mean of the return fractions of the individual investments. It's also a theorem that the weighted arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the weighted geometric mean, so regardless of what happens in the market (given the above assumptions) the passive investor P does at least as well as the rebalancing investor R. P will do even better if taxes and trading costs are factored in. The real world: Of course prices aren't continuously differentiable or even continuous, nor can you continuously trade. (Indeed, under such assumptions the optimal investing strategy would be to sample the prices sufficiently rapidly to capture the derivatives and then to move all your assets to the stock increasing at the highest relative rate. This crazy momentum trading would explosively destabilize the market and cause the assumptions to break.) The point of this is not to argue for or against rebalancing, but to point out that any argument for rebalancing which continues to hold under the above ideal assumptions is bogus. (Many such arguments do.) If a stockbroker standing to profit from commission pushes rebalancing on you with an argument that still holds under the above assumptions then he is profiting off of BS.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c97d81678b366cd5a96f1a805db91cee",
"text": "Yes E[x] is expected value of x. E[x|y] = expected value of x, given y. c, k are some constants Let E[s_{n+1}|s_n=c] = c, but if E[s_{n+1}|s_n,s_{n-1},...,s_{n-m}] ->some constant k as m->\\infty (call this equation 1) then rebalancing makes sense. Notes:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7658a2827e8c0dfc9718a89e0c64f7aa",
"text": "\"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \"\"on sale\"\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "614f000308e628a7beaebe5b18c56020",
"text": "Thanks for your reply! I presume then if I don't convert back (say I spend everything) then it's much the same. So my main consideration should be whether I think the currency will increase or decrease in my time away if I'm converting back",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e034c4331d15e3aef5d73451913e17b2",
"text": "If you have significant assets, such as a large deposit, then diversification of risks such as currency risk is good practice - there are many good options, but keeping 100% of it in roubles is definitely not a good idea, nor is keeping 100% of it in a single foreign currency. Of course, it would be much more beneficial to have done it yesterday, and moments of extreme volatility generally are a bad time to make large uninformed trades, but if the deposit is sufficiently large (say, equal to annual expenses) then it would make sense to split it among different currencies and also different types of assets as well (deposit/stocks/precious metals/bonds). The rate of rouble may go up and down, but you also have to keep in mind that future events such as fluctuating oil price may risk a much deeper crisis than now, and you can look to experiences of the 1998 crisis as an example of what may happen if the situation continues to deteriorate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07a683e257b1d57524ea87fa056efd0f",
"text": "Taking as given that your definition of VA involves selling at intermediate times, your question can be made more general. After all, value averaging is just one special case of a portfolio that rebalances to target weights periodically. Do back-end fees (and front-end fees) harm the value of portfolios that require rebalancing? The answer is yes, they do. Those fees are put in place in order to prevent investors from redeeming shares over any but the longest horizons. Any portfolio that rebalances periodically will involve some periodic selling. If you invest in a fund with front-end or back-end fees, it is optimal to leave your money in it for as long as possible and not do any rebalancing. If you want to run a portfolio that is at all active (involves rebalancing), then it is probably wise to use no-load funds. These are often some of the best and cheapest funds anyway, but even if front or back end load funds have a lower expense ratio, you will likely lose money on those loads as you rebalance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cca1f388f296720d6f055eea0c36174e",
"text": "If your criteria has changed but some of your existing holdings don't meet your new criteria you should eventually liquidate them, because they are not part of your new strategy. However, you don't want to just liquidate them right now if they are currently performing quite well (share price currently uptrending). One way you could handle this is to place a trailing stop loss on the stocks that don't meet your current criteria and let the market take you out when the stocks have stopped up trending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af7e4c925d7f01f3b0f1aae9348cac36",
"text": "\"Well what he was trying to say is that support should be prioritized higher as an investment rather than cut to the bone as a necessary overhead evil. Yes, they all still need to be balanced, so technically it's a true statement, but the implication with which it was said was \"\"you shouldn't be pouring money into support. Ever.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbe9180f1cff5262fcf27862358c007a",
"text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in, which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a \"\"blip\"\", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are \"\"wrong\"\" and that the \"\"true price\"\" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are \"\"sound\"\"). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a \"\"balanced\"\" portfolio -- without putting \"\"all your eggs in one basket\"\" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "000c45b503d857f5f81da23d773a0aae",
"text": "(a) 5 funds for $15K is not too many or too few ? A bit high as I'd wonder if you've thought of how you'll rebalance the funds over time so you aren't investing too much in a particular market segment. I'd also question if you know what kinds of fees you may have with those funds as some of Vanguard's index funds had fees if the balance is under $10K that may change how much you'll be paying. From Vanguard's site: We charge a $20 annual account service fee for each Vanguard fund with a balance of less than $10,000 in an account. This fee doesn’t apply if you sign up for account access on Vanguard.com and choose electronic delivery of statements, confirmations, and Vanguard fund reports and prospectuses. This fee also doesn’t apply to members of Flagship®, Voyager Select®, and Voyager Services®. So, if you don't do the delivery this would be an extra $100/year that I wonder if you factored that into things here. (b) Have I diversified my portfolio too much or not enough ? Perhaps I am missing something that would be recommended for the portfolio of this kind with this goal. Both, in my opinion. Too much in the sense that you are looking at Morningstar's style box to pick a fund for this box and that which I'd consider consolidating on one hand yet at the same time I notice that you are sticking purely to US stocks and ignoring international funds. I do think taxes may be something you haven't considered too much as stocks will outgrow most of those funds and trigger capital gains that you don't mention at all. (c) If not my choice of my portfolio, where would you invest $15K under similar circumstances and similar goals. What is the goal here? You state that this is your first cash investment but don't state if this is for retirement, a vacation in 10 years, a house in 7 years or a bunch of other possibilities which is something to consider. If I consider this as retirement investments, I'd like pick 1 or 2 funds known for being tax-efficient that would be where I'd start. So, if a fund goes down 30%, that's OK? Do you have a rebalancing strategy of any kind? Do you realize what taxes you may have even if the fund doesn't necessarily have gains itself? In not stating a goal, I wonder how well do you have a strategy worked out for how you'll sell off these funds down the road at some point as something to ponder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4eda5d941ef9f38511d2d191b1803f8",
"text": "Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75bcad1593ac0755ac3d8e9080e922d7",
"text": "\"Doesn't \"\"no rebalancing\"\" mean \"\"start with a portfolio and let it fly?\"\" Seems like incorporation of rebalancing is more sophisticated than not. Just \"\"buy\"\" your portfolio at the start and see where it ends up with no buying/selling, as compared with where it ends up if you do rebalance. Or is it not that simple?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50662f953cc4b7404eaf863a01511a40",
"text": "The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline). The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level. However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back. So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%. Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par. This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great. And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "586200e8f685acbfec8ff09bf4bec44f",
"text": "If the portfolio itself is taxable, then yes; if you have two stocks and you're rebalancing them, without using new cash, you are forced to sell one stock to buy another. That sale is taxable, unless you're in some sort of tax deferred/deductible account, such as an IRA. If you're talking about you being in a mutual fund and the fund itself rebalances, the same rules apply as above, though indirectly; you'll have capital gains realized and distributed to you, those gains will be taxed unless, again, your account is a retirement account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7034b1830c9bba00e0fa8ff154ab84d5",
"text": "\"Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. \"\"US-LC\"\" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. \"\"Intl-Dev\"\" is international stocks from developed economies, \"\"Emer\"\" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b21e111173e3ecdcd7780e47437aa2b",
"text": "\"There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to \"\"win it back\"\" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "866e56378c12f624de147a562a7a2657",
"text": "There is little difference. A paycheck is a type of check used to pay wages. These days many people opt for direct deposit. So, the term paycheck can also refer to the payment itself: 1: a check in payment of wages or salary 2: wages, salary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paycheck",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
30fe70f1c678818a41775e70fb5ab81b
|
What is the interest rate online brokerages paying out tied to?
|
[
{
"docid": "955841b84a2ceb0d770b7292c6779ba2",
"text": "The prime rate is the interest rate banks use amongst themselves to lend money to each other only. It is used as the basis (sometimes) for what interest rate banks charge you. The prime rate is based loosely on the Fed rate. There is a committee that meets regularly to set this and other industry interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_rate I am not 100% positive the following is totally accurate The banks keep our deposits and pay us interest for doing so. They are paying us interest because they take yours, mine and everybody elses deposits as a large lump sum and invest that money. Sometimes as business loans, sometimes as mortgages and sometimes as credit card. The banks have a book of business that will be EXACTLY how much credit they have extended to everybody. But they do not keep that amount of cash in the vaults, only some smaller percentage of that large amount. When I use my credit card and they need to transfer money to amazon.com, if they don't happen to have enough cash that day, they will just borrow from another bank that does, and the interest rate they pay to do so is the prime rate. Since they are paying interest on the money they borrow to pay the debt I charged because they told me my credit was worth so much (...???...) they charge me a little bit more than that. Hence your credit card or mortgage's APR being based on the prime rate. I THINK that is what they do If I am wrong leave a comment and I will update, or the mods can.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "95ca67f26046fbfb3fe0ca5ce21f6426",
"text": "Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da71f9205f2e0eb7c6a2ce25a7af6eb4",
"text": "[This is a company's (TradingView.com) customer subscription levels.](https://i.imgur.com/1YIPzOn.gif) Why do they charge a higher price when customers pay monthly? Monthly increases short term cash flow, right? Why do you think they make prices in such a way that it incentivizes customers to be billed every 2 years?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13ad0143a8523b975c7b299bed7ecf3c",
"text": "\"The rate of the bond is fixed. But there is a risk known as \"\"interest rate risk\"\". Basically, if you have a 2 percent bond and market rates are 4 percent, you'll have to offer your bond at a discount or nobody would buy it. So if you ever needed to sell it, you'd lose a bit of money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "010b9f7f106a63c25ec5dd87c62d07eb",
"text": "I'm NMLS with a bank, won't name it, but you can buy and sell points up to .5 if I remember right. Might be 1% but it's the difference between 1300 and 1700 if I remember right for monthly payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d488865526296e2db4fd5227db813131",
"text": "If you want the cheapest online broker in Australia, you can't go past CMC Markets, they charge $9.90 upto a $10,000 trade and 0.1% above that. There is no ongoing fees unless you choose to have dynamic data (stock prices get updated automatically as they change). However, the dynamic data fee does get waived if you have about 10 or more trades per month. You don't really need the dynamic data unless you are a regular trader anyway. They also provide some good research tools and some basic charting. Your funds with them are kept segragated in a Bankwest Account, so are resonably safe. They don't provide the best interest on funds kept in the account, so it is best to just deposit the funds when you are looking to buy, and move your funds elswhere (earning higher interest) when selling. Hopes this helps, regards Victor. Update They have now increased their basic brokerage to a minimum of $11 per trade unless you are a frequent trader.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12ce6bf1901e7a59419a3c340b6d6bfc",
"text": "I could be mistaken on this, but after the GM bailout and others, weren't laws put in place to essentially force companies to maintain a certain level of liquidity? Also, that 0% is probably closer to .25~.50 through way of credit swaps, no? Or if we assume it's earning .1%, that's still $6,666,667/month ($80,000,000,000 x .001/12).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "143bcb802543729b3a4d8b18656ffe00",
"text": "12b1's have fallen out of favor in recent years, and are typically capped at about 0.25%. they are also usually waived and factored into the fund OER these days, too, though it depends on who your broker is. any revenue sharing shouldn't increase your fees. in my experience, there is more incentivizing for cross selling rather than revenue sharing, but in any case those would be fractions of your revenue allocated to different parties, and not additional fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6a5b1a28f9a16f547af83d7f15df226",
"text": "\"Banks often offer cash to people who open savings accounts in order to drive new business. Their gain is pretty much as you think, to grow their asset base. A survey released in 2008 by UK-based Age Concern declared that only 16% of the British population have ever switched their banks‚ while 45% of marriages now end in divorce. Yip, till death do most part. In the US, similar analysis is pointing to a decline in people moving banks from the typical rate of 15% annually. If people are unwilling to change banks then how much more difficult for online brokers to get customers to switch? TD Ameritrade is offering you 30 days commission-free and some cash (0.2% - 0.4% depending on the funds you invest). Most people - especially those who use the opportunity to buy and hold - won't make much money for them, but it only takes a few more aggressive traders for them to gain overall. For financial institutions the question is straightforward: how much must they pay you to overcome your switching cost of changing institutions? If that number is sufficiently smaller than what they feel they can make in profits on having your business then they will pay. EDIT TO ELABORATE: The mechanism by which any financial institution makes money by offering cash to customers is essentially one of the \"\"law of large numbers\"\". If all you did is transfer in, say, $100,000, buy an ETF within the 30-day window (or any of the ongoing commission-free ones) and hold, then sell after a few years, they will probably lose money on you. I imagine they expect that on a large number of people taking advantage of this offer. Credit card companies are no different. More than half of people pay their monthly credit balance without incurring any interest charges. They get 30 days of credit for free. Everyone else makes the company a fortune. TD Ameritrade's fees are quite comprehensive outside of this special offer. Besides transactional commissions, their value-added services include subscription fees, administration fees, transaction fees, a few extra-special value-added services and, then, when you wish to cash out and realise your returns, an outbound transfer fee. However, you're a captured market. Since most people won't change their online brokers any more often than they'd change their bank, TD Ameritrade will be looking to offer you all sorts of new services and take commission on all of it. At most they spend $500-$600 to get you as a customer, or, to get you to transfer a lot more cash into their funds. And they get to keep you for how long? Ten years, maybe more? You think they might be able to sell you a few big-ticket items in the interim? Maybe interest you in some subscription service? This isn't grocery shopping. They can afford to think long-term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33580f0327e95b794853dd6c811a609b",
"text": "Generally, if you watch for the detail in the fine print, and stay away from non-FDIC insured investments, there is little difference, so yes, pick the highest you can get. The offered interest rate is influenced by what the banks are trying to accomplish, and how their current and desired customer base thinks. Some banks have customer bases with very conservative behavior, which will stick with them because they trust them no matter what, so a low interest rate is good enough. The disadvantage for the bank is that such customers prefer brick-and-mortar contact, which is expensive for the bank. Or maybe the bank has already more cash than they need, and has no good way to invest it. Other banks might need more cash flow to be able to get stronger in the mortgage market, and their way of getting that is to offer higher interest rates, so new customers come and invest new money (which the bank in turn can then mortgage out). They also may offer higher rates for online handling only. Overall, there are many different ways to make money as a bank, and they diversify into different niches with other focuses, and that comes with offering quite different interest rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "dc791ff7f4a2e648915913f2f2bc62ae",
"text": "Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd32495b2fc65a7b03e82757110cf866",
"text": "\"The CBOE states, in an investor's guide to Interest Rate Options: The Options’ Underlying Values Underlying values for the option contracts are 10 times the underlying Treasury yields (rates)— 13-week T-bill yield (for IRX), 5-year T-note yield (for FVX), 10-year T-note yield (for TNX) and 30-year T-bond yield (for TYX). The Yahoo! rate listed is the actual Treasury yield; the Google Finance and CBOE rates reflect the 10 times value. I don't think there's a specific advantage to \"\"being contrary\"\", more likely it's a mistake, or just different.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47b0e5018962cd5b091dffb879e6d7f5",
"text": "There is a strange puzzle today where savings account interest rates are not rising in-line with the Federal Funds rate. Either customers are apathetic to their alternative uses of cash, or banks have some-how formed a cartel to keep their cost of funding low. I'm leaning towards the former since bank customers today likely value readily accessible cash more than the interest rate they could earn by investing in money market mutual funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bee78018b81af59a0e3e08da5d804a6",
"text": "The article is talking about relative cost. You could use the cash Schiller P/E ratio as a proxy. That's unit of price per unit of earning. The answer to your question is one time in history, during the 2000 dot com bubble. It's higher than 2008 before the downturn. You are paying more for the same earnings. That has nothing to do with the size of the economy and everything to do with interest rates being too low for too long",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdb9d53bfcaf74972aab1178e5c86e2e",
"text": "You will be hit every time, once every buy order and once every sell order. Commissions to the broker are paid every time they do something for you. This is true regardless if it is a security in which you are already invested. It is true regardless if you make or lose money. It is just as sure as death and taxes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6a7371b5996ffc727f15ab1898a4ce2a
|
Selling on eBay without PayPal?
|
[
{
"docid": "8d3a13812edfed263d5768a70bf45c56",
"text": "I've definitely seen a similar conversation about this, I personally don't buy from eBay (Amazon for me). So I turned to the internet to see what I could find to offer you any additional information (albeit not my personal experience). I first read this article: CodeNerdz Article and was pretty horrified by the scamming that can happen by buyers. Then, this article by another regular user of eBay, Selling on eBay without PayPal : eBay Guides confirmed the trouble people have with PayPal & eBay. Payment Services permitted on eBay: Allpay.net, Canadian Tire Money, cash2india, CertaPay, Checkfree.com, hyperwallet.com, Moneybookers.com, Nochex.com, Ozpay.biz, Paymate.com.au, Propay.com, XOOM Have you looked into any or all of these?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31564833d7ca386dc6d8186521ba3a89",
"text": "\"One option might be to set up a separate bank account and a separate credit card account, which you would use only for your ebay transactions. I have a friend who does a lot of selling on ebay, and this is exactly what she did. It's reasonable to want to protect your personal finances from any complications that might arise with PayPal and/or ebay. But since you definitely have to provide a bank account and c.c. number (there's no way around this), the best solution might be to set up separate \"\"ebay-only\"\" accounts. And be sure not to link them to any of your personal accounts, for added protection. If you're planning to do a lot of selling, this is probably a good idea anyway just for record-keeping purposes. If you do a lot of selling on ebay, you might consider setting up a \"\"merchant account\"\". There are some limitations on international transactions (currently you can't sell to residents of UK, Australia, or France), and payment processing is a few days slower. But there seem to be fewer fees/risks/etc associated with a merchant account. I don't know much more about it, but here's an article from an ebay seller, including pros and cons of PayPal vs. merchant accounts. http://www.ebay.com/gds/Selling-on-eBay-without-PayPal/10000000021351301/g.html\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b15743b1f36eff257bb2746227355339",
"text": "Dwolla looks to be a great option. But it requires users to have an account there (Free to sign up). And there rates are absolutely amazing. Free for transactions under $10 $0.25 to receive money on transactions over $10",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f04a0c9a5897e4c3330559a6e19cc185",
"text": "\"It's been a short while since I sold on eBay, but I had a feedback rating of about 4,500 so I've done a lot of transactions. The trump card is, and always will be, the buyer's ability to contact their credit card company and reverse the charges. PayPal has no policy to stop this even though they claim to \"\"vigorously defend Sellers from chargebacks\"\" on their website. You will lose this case 100% of the time. I don't see how that will change if you have your own terminal. The Buyer can still reverse the charges. Since you know the card number maybe you can contact his credit card company but it's probably not going to do much. I've found PayPal is more Seller friendly in terms of PayPal claims. For example, the customer has a duty to pay postage to return the product and that's a cost for him. You also have things like online tracking which shows delivery and PayPal has an IP log to see where the payments are coming from. That helped me when a buyer claimed that someone else made the payment. Because people often break into someone's house and make PayPal payments for them....heh. You really just need to use PayPal. You'll get more customers and better prices and it will offset the losses from scammers. Also, about 99% of buyers are honest people. Consider the scammers a cost of doing business and keep making money off of the good Buyers. If you're just pissed off that people actually scammed you, get over it. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. It's just part of doing business on eBay.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fca11c4ffec55524e4ced645bc4a098",
"text": "I think you need to have paypal for eBay selling, just for one reason: people will avoid buying from you if they can't pay by paypal. It decreases significantly your selling.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0c5e87f8ad4f78766ee62122ac566585",
"text": "It's possible the recipient of the payment is not setup to receive funds form PayPal from a credit card, too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf1b6fb983a0516734ce882f4d173f24",
"text": "Paypal can take exactly the same legal actions against you as any creditor could -- take you to court for wilful nonpayment of debt, sell your debt to a collections agency, or anything else a business would do with a deadbeat customer. But this is a legal question, and as such off topic here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f38fae979b904d5f9b24000f51a96e5",
"text": "Yes, PayPal allows you to add a donate button to your website. You're responsible for any tax record-keeping related to income from the donate button.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "761f0139511e6eaccb15eb81532582a8",
"text": "For people who frequently submit payments via PayPal, you may want to try and negotiate with them to use Paypal mass payments. Although the mass payment program is designed to send small amounts to many people, you can process payment batches of 1 transaction. In the CA mass payment fees (paid by sender) are 2% capped at 1.25 CAD To CA and US. International payments are 2% capped at 24.00 CAD. No fees for receiver. A business PayPal account is required to enable mass payments. When I mention this to customers, many are unaware Paypal's mass payment program exists! https://merchant.paypal.com/ca/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=merchant/mass_pay",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56b01badf3f52009978c270470a6887f",
"text": "There's no requirement to use these OTP systems to process Internet transactions. Some merchants are using them, some are not. PayPal does not since they are not the receiver of the money but rather a merchant processor - so they don't assume any risk anyway and wouldn't bother.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98e0c7c1611cb33a283a45e94ba2c289",
"text": "\"The thing to look at is PayPal's \"\"PayPal.me\"\" service, which is a pretty neat little item. When you sign up for a PayPal.me account (totally free), you create a unique username. So for example, my PayPal.me account name is DanCAnderson. I can give someone the following web link to send me $500: http://paypal.me/DanCAnderson/500 If you click the link above, you'll see what the user sees (my company name is Salt River Networks, Inc.). I gave a live link so you can see the working example of it (no need for anyone to send money! chuckle). I can change the amount by simply changing the value at the end of the URL. When they go to that link, they see a landing page with your name on it and the amount to send to you, then they go through the normal process of paying via PayPal. It's a pretty neat service, and I've used to it bill a few clients for work I've done by emailing that link to them rather than going through the whole PayPal procedure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d422f62db3fa9e273f380466c095bfce",
"text": "\"Although they probably don't help ISIS, it will be interesting to see how Paypal's moral agency holds up to the rigorous whataboutism of the internet - remember a few months ago when the bank USAA pulled advertising from one news channel, then after public outcry, pulled their advertising from multiple channels because it fit the same box of \"\"not advertising on controversial sources\"\" ? That said, paypal has always been kind of douchy in regards to servicing its customers properly- holding money, screwing over sellers, black listing users and more- a lot of people probably already have a truly negative opinion of paypal, perhaps this move is designed to earn them some goodwill? If so, I doubt we'll see even application of the original line of thought -- don't want to urk those who you're attempting to pander to.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d04f02096790013dad061e7c858f67f",
"text": "Paypal UK has a page here: https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/seller-protection Basically they don't just take the seller's word for it, there is a resolution process. The biggest thing you can do is make sure that you deliver it in a way that requires signature.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51788755f7176dffdb025f6ef5264772",
"text": "It's always a good idea to check your credit history on a regular basis - try checking your credit score from one of the independent providers recently (like Equifax) ? Maybe that will offer a clue what PayPal is doing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58f356edc765539400f4a3ea5ef4d3b4",
"text": "Yes. I have a US based website that accepts payments via PayPal and can confirm we have many customers from India. Here is a list of countries PayPal supports. Note typically there are some additional fees associated with currency conversion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4578560b62ee967382c9c9a2927bd89f",
"text": "Just ship using a reputable courier (definitely not Yodel or Hermes!) that requires and obtains a surname and signature which you can view on their website (Citylink, Parcel Force to name a couple). Then remember to submit the tracking details when you mark the item as shipped on eBay. If the buyer is still brazen enough to claim the item never arrived, Paypal (in my experience) don't even entertain their claim. If however they claim the item arrived damaged/not as described, it could be trickier to defend. I'd recommend thoroughly documenting your item with photographs and recording the serial number, just in case you need to provide the details to Paypal. Again, in my experience, this has been enough to protect me from any fraudulent claims. To answer your second question, I don't believe eBay permits you to specify 'No Paypal', but if they did then yes, bank transfer is 100% safe (short of someone using stolen money to pay for the item, in which case you'd be guilty of money laundering thanks to the UK's wonderful laws on such things...)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0011c2d147a78e3b4afab4acd9ea44c",
"text": "PayPal does charge a premium, both for sending and receiving. Here's how you find their rates:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "beda3cf6bca17ac9e91c02eeee920a24",
"text": "I think about as close as you're going to get is to use a personal PayPal account, and set up a reminder to yourself to log in and send the money. (Because, as you said, setting up a recurring payment is a business account thing.) From PayPal's website: Sending money – Personal payments: It's free within the U.S. to send money to family and friends when you use only your PayPal balance or bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. ... Receiving money – Personal payments: It's free to receive money from friends or family in the U.S. when they send the money from the PayPal website using only their PayPal balance or their bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. You can automate the reminder to yourself with any of the gazillion task managers out there: Google Calendar, MS Outlook, Todoist, Remember the Milk, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d265e885a4eef7fb53d1452c53d655f6",
"text": "No. PayPal payments are credited to a PayPal account. PayPal doesn't let you pay arbitrary banks or credit cards, that defeats the purpose of PayPal and there are other services which can do that cheaper or with less hassle. You need to find another mutually available and satisfactory option with your client.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c560ff8a865296a2908cbc18ed8b0a",
"text": "As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0dfa59a172e3e7413ad0ac7ec5d4c37d
|
Scam or Real: A woman from Facebook apparently needs my bank account to send money
|
[
{
"docid": "ed7f6e1d3fdc84d50b5109a5767fead5",
"text": "\"The other answers describe why this is highly likely to be a scam. This answer describes why you don't want to get involved, even in the unlikely case that it isn't a scam. I'm describing this using US law (which I'm not particularly familiar with, so if I go astray I'd suggest others fix any flaws in this answer), but most other countries have similar laws as these laws are all implementations of a small number of international treaties have very large memberships. The service you describe (accepting money transfers from one party and transferring them to another) is one which, if you engage in it for profit, would classify you as a \"\"financial institution\"\" under 31 USC 5312, specifically paragraph (a)(2)(R): any other person who engages as a business in the transmission of funds, including any person who engages as a business in an informal money transfer system Because you would be acting as a financial institution: Failure to follow such requirements can lead to a fine of up to $250,000 or a 5 year prison sentence (31 USC 5322). See also: Customer Identification Program and Know Your Customer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "693203b172aa4c1b7e27f7057db53bf2",
"text": "Absolute scam. Any time anyone asks you to open a bank account so they can send you money and then you have to send some portion of it back to them, it's a guarantee that it's a scam. What happens is that your dad will deposit the check and transfer it to this woman, then the check will bounce (or turn out to be fake altogether) and your dad will be on the hook for the money to the bank. These schemes are dependent on the fact that people want hope and believe in quick, easy money, and it works as long as the con artists are able to get the 'mark' (the person who deposits the check and sends them the money) to send the money before the check (always drawn on some obscure foreign bank) has a chance to clear. This is another variation of a long-running type of bank scam, and if you get involved, you'll regret it. I hope you can keep your dad from getting involved, because it will create a financial mess and affect his credit as well. The basic premise of this scam is this: In the interests of providing good customer service, most banks will make some or all of a deposit available right away, even though the check hasn't cleared. The scammer has you withdraw the money (either a cashier's check, have you send a wire transfer, etc) immediately and send it to them. Eventually the check is returned because it is The bank charges the check back against your account, often imposing pretty substantial penalties and fees, so you as the account holder are left without the money you sent the scammer and all of the fees. This is the easy version of events. You could end up in legal trouble, depending on the nature of the scam and what they determine your involvement to be. It will certainly badly affect your banking history (ChexSystems tracks how we all treat bank accounts, much like the credit agencies do with our credit), so you may have trouble opening bank accounts. So there are many consequences to this to think about, and it's why you JUST SAY NO!! Don't walk away from this -- RUN!!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56fb73a2e8ec4fb502a48d6384f1265e",
"text": "Yes, it is a scam. Think about it: Why would a stranger offer to give you money? Why would she need you to pay her own employees? She wouldn't. It is a scam. You have more to lose than just the $25 that is in the account. Just as has happened to your dad before, you will be receiving money that is not real, but paying real money out somewhere else. One more thing: If your dad has fallen for these scams so many times that he can't get a bank account anymore, why are you still taking financial advice from him?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dee794b7471270e27bf4efb3d49e60dd",
"text": "If it's not the classic scam described in Daniel Anderson's answer, then it's probably money laundering. In that case, the woman would actually wire you money, which you have to wire to someone else she names. This is done to enter illegally gained money into the regular money circulation, hiding the trail. If this is the case, you would have to do many transfers, and the woman might actually pay you for performing this service. And then, one day, when the FBI/police busts some people and follows the illegal money trail they'll end up at your dad. Or rather, at you, because the account is in your name. And then you'll have a lot of explaining to do and a lot of time in jail to think about what a bad idea this was. See this question for an example of this. This answer also touches on the subject. Close the account, and run away from this. No good will come of it. It's very simple: if someone you don't know (or sometimes, you do know) contacts you and offers you easy money, they are getting something out of it at your expense. Period. It might be a scam where they somehow end up with the money, or you might be doing something illegal for them, but it always benefits them, not you. As a final thought, you also write: I had to get the bank account in my name because my dad has bad notices on his records for falling for fraud traps ... What makes you think this time it will be different? Think carefully, because the bank account is in your name! So when the shit hits the fan, it's you who's in trouble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b27e51cd348f465db58c31f745b0b37f",
"text": "This is a scam, I'm adding this answer because I was scammed in this fashion. The scammer sent me a check with which I was to deposit. When the money showed up in my account, I would withdraw the scammer's share, and wire the cash to its destination. However, it takes a couple days for a check to clear. Banks, however, want you to see that money, so they might give it to you on good faith before the check actually clears. That's how the scam works, you withdraw the fake money the bank has fronted before the check clears. A couple days later, the check doesn't clear, and you wake up with an account far into the negatives, the scammer long gone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec456909c2d1c75c5820e40e811a5ee4",
"text": "\"The answers here are all correct. This is 100% scam, beyond any reasonable doubt. Don't fall for it. However, I felt it valuable to explain what would happen were you to fall for this. It's not all that hard to understand, but it involves understanding some of the time delays that exist in modern banking today. The most important thing to understand is that depositing a check does not actually put dollars in your account, even though it appears to. A check is not legal tender for debts public and private. It's a piece of paper known as a \"\"bill of exchange.\"\" It's an authorization for a payee (you), to request that their bank pay you the amount on the check. A transaction made with a check does not actually draw to a close until your bank and their bank communicate and cause the actual transfer of funds to take place. This process is called \"\"clearing\"\" the check. Despite living in the modern times, this process is slow. It can take 7-10 days to clear a check (especially if it is an international bank). This is not good for the banking business. You can imagine how difficult it would be to tell a poor client, who is living paycheck to paycheck, that he can't have his pay until the check clears a week later. Banks have an interest in hiding this annoying feature of the modern banking system, so they do. When you deposit a check, the bank will typically advance you the money (an interest free loan, in effect) while the check \"\"floats\"\" (i.e. until it clears). This creates the illusion that the money is actually in your account for most intents and purposes. (presumably a bank would distinguish between the floating check and a cleared check if you tried to close out your account, but otherwise it looks and feels like the money is in your hands). Of course, if the check is dishonored (because the payer had insufficient funds, or the account simply did not exist), your bank will not get the money. At this moment, they will cancel any advances you received and notify you that the check bounced. Again, this happens 7-10 days later. The general pattern of this scam is that they will pay you by a method which clears slowly, like a check. They will then ask you to withdraw the money using a faster clearing method (like a wire transfer or withdrawing the cash). Typically they will be encouraging you to move quickly (they are on a timetable... when their check bounces, the game is up!) At this time, it will appear as though the account has a positive balance, but in fact it has a negative balance plus an advance on the check. This looks great until 7-10 days later, when the check bounces. At that time, the bank will cancel the advance, and reality will set in. You will now have an open bank account, legally opened by you in your own name, which is deeply in debt. Meanwhile, the scammer walks away with all the money that you sent them (which cleared quickly). There are many variants which can hide the details. Some can play games with check kiting to try to make your first check clear (then try to rope you in for a more painful hit). Some will change the instruments they use (checks are the easy ones, so they're simply most common). Don't try to think \"\"maybe this one is legit.\"\" These scammers literally make a living off of making shady transactions look legit. Things I would recommend looking out for:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "430e08f51f13423b6d5d986dea5e485f",
"text": "100% scam. Run away. If you have already given the bank account, inform the bank and close the account. Else just close the new account opened. Do not contact the scammer or reply back.... Just ignore ... Don't read any of scammer email, they are very convincing in why it's right and why it's not a scam.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27f203d4fad8c85d70ab23f49029d03c",
"text": "This is either laundering money or laundering non-money. All the other answers point out how a cheque or bank transfer will take days to actually clear. That is a red herring! There are lots of ways to illegally transfer real money out of existing accounts. Stolen cheque books, stolen banking details (partly in connection with stolen smartphones and credit cards) and cards, money transfers from other people duped in a similar manner as you are: it is much easier to steal money than invent it, and it takes quite longer until stolen rather than invented money will blow up at the banks. All of those payments will likely properly clear but not leave you in actual legal possession of money. People will notice the missing money and notify police and banks and you will be on the hook for paying back all of it. Cheques and transfers from non-existing accounts, in contrast, tend to blow up very fast and thus are less viable for this kind of scam as the time window for operating the scam is rather small. Whether or not the cheque actually clears is about as relevant of whether or not the Rolls Royce you are buying for $500 because the owner has an ingrown toe nail and cannot press down the accelerator any more has four wheels. Better hope for the Rolls to be imaginary because then you'll only be out of $500 and that's the end of it. If it is real, your trouble is only starting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "150d853bef67f7c0cfaf4db82a35ec24",
"text": "If it's real, it's illegal. She needs someone to be a middle man who transfers money and doesn't ask questions. The list of possible reasons should be plenty obvious and range anywhere from fraud to terrorism. There are thousands of ways to get already transferred money back from your account. If the source of the money is some kind of fraud that's only detected 2 years later, someone will ask you for the money back in 2 years. If real people who operate within legal and moral boundaries want to pay someone, they do not ask someone on Facebook to do it for them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f703da0fbefcb219833f7a7ab96b320",
"text": "\"Well, all of the previous answers already mentioned the upcoming scam and danger situation for your financial position. I thoroughly read all answers and wanted to add a few more lines on it. Cort Ammon) already shows details of it. Any kind of financial transaction involving a complete stranger is the first big scam tag that shows up and this should always 'Never Fall In' type situation. If you open a new bank account or give away any existing bank account to this lady, other than just losing some amount, you might pay earlier than clearing checks you deposited on behalf of your 'stranger' partner. Depending on their target/plan/experience with your bank account they can make you a victim of a bigger crime. There is a full length of scam plans, like sending you false checks to deposit and ask you withdrew money to send them back to even having very big incoming transaction to your account sitting idle on your account which might originate from a crime beyond the financial domain. You can try to be smart, thinking in mind, well, let them send some, I will never send them back before bank declare the deposited checks got horned and clear (and send back the amount after keeping your share). But, still you will face problems later. Even if your account fills up with real money and after confirming with bank you find it OK and never return them (scam a scammer). Still you will not have any valid authority or answer describing how/why you got this money if someone ask you later. Depending on scammer's ability, they might even give you control over fund to spend for your own (to gain some trust from your part). On this type of scam it is a sign of an even bigger danger. I live such a country, Bangladesh, from where recently they successfully transferred out around US$10 millions using a bank account of an outsider like you keeping in between source of money and final unknown destination. The result is the owner / operator of those accounts used for these transfers are now under law enforcement pressure, not only just to find out where ultimately money has gone, but for sure they will face some degree of charge for helping transfer of illegal money overseas\"\". For someone who is not part of a full scam chain it is a big deal. It might ruin their life forever. To be on the safe side, and help protect others from falling on the same type of problem you may contact your local law enforcement agency. Depending on the situation, they might be interested to run a sting operation using your information and support to catch and stop the crime going to happen soon or later. I would give a rare chance of 2% legitimate reason for anyone to use a third-party bank account to pay some other living either different country (still it is not legal, but a lower-type crime). But obviously they will not ask randomly over the Internet/social network sites. In your case this is a real scam. Be careful and stay safe; Good Luck.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c6a286121301ab403c1d42fc914feb21",
"text": "Of course, it is a scam. Regardless of how the scam might work, you already know that the person on the other end is lying, and you also know that people in trouble don't contact perfect strangers out of the blue by e-mail for help, nor do they call up random phone numbers looking for help. Scammers prey on the gullibility, greed, and sometimes generosity of the victims. As to how this scam works, the money that the scammer would be depositing into your father's account is not real. However, it will take the bank a few days to figure that out. In the mean time, your father will be sending out real money back to the scammer. When the bank figures out what is going on, they will want your father to pay back this money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bb927370e4c9c826f2438fd12069a89",
"text": "\"This is another version of an old scam -- \"\"let me have a check deposited in your account because I can't open one for some reason, and I'll share some of the money with you.\"\" Here the scammer is promising to \"\"start a business\"\" with you as a way to gain your confidence and trust. The first danger sign is that you only know this person from online. They are not someone you are friends with in the \"\"real\"\" world. They could be anybody. They used the name of a big company as a way to make what they're doing sound legitimate, but it's all a fraud. They could be depositing a faked Exxon check into your account, which could land YOU in huge trouble. Here's the thing -- The only way Exxon (or any other company) can deposit money in a bank under someone's name is if that person provides the account and routing numbers to an account that already exists. No company can just create an account in another person's name. That's Hollywood movie stuff, but it's not how banking works. To open an account, the bank would need identification on the account holder, so your \"\"friend\"\" already has an account if Exxon has allegedly deposited money. Further, Exxon isn't going to take back money that has already been deposited. In fact, they can't take it back. If the account is in his name, they can't do anything to the account or with the account. This is a situation you should run away from and never look back. Nothing about this story sounds right or legitimate, but this is one of the oldest scams out there since the beginning of the Internet. You would be well advised to stay VERY far away from your supposed friend, because they're anything but your friend. You are being SCAMMED. Don't be a victim. Stop communicating with this person immediately, and DON'T give them any personal information of any kind. They're crooks! I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e10f9fb1ebe25140c06de0de01657db",
"text": "He has my bank account info, and I just want to know where I stand legally. Legally you can't keep the money. It would either go back to the originator or to Government unclaimed department. I got a bunch of missed calls from an unknown number and a really unprofessional email from a guy who supposedly worked for UNICEF saying I had 4 hours until I am suppose to be visited by police and that there was nowhere I could run to. These are common tactics employed to ensure you take some action and transfer the real money somewhere. Do not succumb to such tactics. The money is still in my account I have not touched it. Advise your Bank immediately that there is this deposit into your account that is not your's. Let the bank take appropriate action. Do not authorize Bank to debit your account. The max you can do is authorize the bank to reverse this transaction. The best is stick to statement that said transaction is not yours and Bank is free to do what is right. There is a small difference and very important. If you authorize bank to debit, you have initiated a payment. So if the original payment were revered by originator bank, you are left short of money. However if your instructions are very clear, that this specific transaction can be reversed, you cannot be additionally debited if this transaction is reversed. He has my bank account info, Depending on how easy / difficult, my suggestion would be monitor this account closely, best is if you can close it out and open a new one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93c96645f913850d5a0ff9df12226fe4",
"text": "She needs to get a bank account at literally any other bank or credit union. I have not paid for a checking account ever, any bank that tries to is ripping you off. Personally I've used ING Direct/Capital One 360 for years without any problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf65901171ca5ae8b21c0fb27c18556f",
"text": "They want my online banking username and password. I don't know if it's a scam. It can't be any more obvious than that. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER give your online banking password to ANYONE. Not your lawyer, not your bank's local branch manager, not your best friend, not your wife, not your mother, and certainly not some random person on the street/Facebook/the Internet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75c4f6840c9c634feb441c398ad5ac39",
"text": "There are lots of red flags here that point to an obvious scam. First, no one, not even people close to you, ever have a valid reason to get your password or security questions. EVER. The first thing they will do is clean out the account you gave them. The second thing they will do is clean out any account of yours that uses the same password. Second, no one ever needs to run money through your account for any reason. If its not your money, don't take it. Third, this person is in the army but was deported to Africa (not to any particular country, just Africa), and is still in the army? This doesn't really make sense at all. This is a blatant obvious scam.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d635984a635dec13512306ce3bb4a1c1",
"text": "He said he would need my first and last name and my online banking information not my date of birth, SSN, Address, Bank Address, Routing number, or checking account number This is a scam. No one needs online Banking User name and password. If you have already given this info, close your account and disable internet banking. not my date of birth, SSN, Address, Giving your date of birth and SSN is also dangerous. So my question for you is it a scam or could he really be wanting to put money into my account? Oh yeah and also he said they'll send it through my account I'll send half BACK through money gram or western union. There is no legit reason for doing this. This is 100% scam, one would only loose money. Just walk away before any damage can be done",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f01187f9acffaf8747493180e29f7a3a",
"text": "I've skimmed through the answers given and I'd like do add another possible scenario. I've recently heard about this exact thing happening to someone only the money originally was a loan taken in the receivers name. 1) Scumbag finds out personal data – including social number, bank account and phone – of Innocent Victim. 2) Scumbag takes out a loan in the name of Innocent Victim. The money are sent to IV's account. 3) Scumbag calls IV saying 'Oh, I've made a mistake, blah, blah, yada, yada. Could you please send the money back to me? My bank account is...' 4) Innocent Victim, being the good guy that he/she is, of course want to help out and send the money to Scumbag. 5) Scumbag makes a cash withdrawal and is no longer anywhere to be found and Innocent Victim is left with a loan but no money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c931860195065d9558dc966e8eae2e83",
"text": "\"Short answer: Yes this is a scam. I see three different possibilities how they get you. I will rank them from \"\"best\"\" to worst Scammer A sends 100$ to you. You then follow his instructions and send back 50$ through WU (this is untraceable). He then contacts his bank and tells them he never intended to send that 100$ to you, then bank will then reverse that transaction and give him back his money, leaving you 50$ short. Scammer A hacks or scams innocent person B and either sends B:s money to you or tricks person B to do it. When person B reports this to the police it will look like you were behind the whole thing. The transaction will be reversed leaving you 50$ short and with unwanted police attention (see this article for an extreme example: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/online-dating-made-woman-pawn-global-crime-plot/) The nice person A wants to send money to a criminal syndicate or terrorist organization but don't want to be associated with it. Leaving you 50$ up (hurray) and possibly on a bunch of terrorist watch lists (ouch!). The extra info you provide wouldn't be necessary for any of these scams but I guess it could be nice to have for some regular identity theft. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all that the scammers could do. It's just a short list to show you how dangerous it would be to play along. To state the obvious, don't walk from this person, RUN!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e75eceb1b2ab7c39bcb9e9670364114b",
"text": "This will end badly, the only question is how long it will take. Performing bank transfers is not difficult and there is no way a 3rd party would be paying her large sums of money to perform these transfers unless the purpose was illegitimate and they were taking advantage of her. In my experience it is as simple as entering the target bank account routing and account #, entering the name (this is not double-checked by the bank to associate with the target account), entering a dollar amount and then agreeing to the terms of the transfer--there are not people out there who have a lot of money but would rather pay somebody $2000+ to do 2 minutes of work in an unofficial capacity instead of just doing it themselves unless they are trying to hide something and/or take advantage of a mark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "625b4ac57726954c615a0f324b509988",
"text": "There are several red flags here. can they get my bank account info in any way from me transferring money to them? Probably yes. Almost all bank transactions are auditable, and intentionally cause a money track. This track can be followed from both sides. If they can use your bank account as if they were you, that is a bit deeper than what you are asking, but yes they (and the polish cops) can find you through that transfer. I did look up the company and didn't find any scam or complaints concerning them. Not finding scams or complains is good, but what did you find? Did you find good reviews, the company website, its register, etc, etc? How far back does the website goes (try the wayback machine) Making a cardboard front company is very easy, and if they are into identity theft the company is under some guy in guam that never heard of poland or paypal. As @Andrew said above, it is probably a scam. I'd add that this scam leverages on the how easier is to get a PayPal refund compared to a regular bank transfer. It is almost impossible to get the money back on an international transaction. Usually reverting a bank transfer requires the agreement in writing of the receiver and of both banks. As for paypal, just a dispute from the other user: You are responsible for all Reversals, Chargebacks, fees, fines, penalties and other liability incurred by PayPal, a PayPal User, or a third party caused by your use of the Services and/or arising from your breach of this Agreement. You agree to reimburse PayPal, a User, or a third party for any and all such liability. (source) Also, you might be violating the TOS: Allow your use of the Service to present to PayPal a risk of non-compliance with PayPal’s anti-money laundering, counter terrorist financing and similar regulatory obligations (including, without limitation, where we cannot verify your identity or you fail to complete the steps to lift your sending, receiving or withdrawal limit in accordance with sections 3.3, 4.1 and 6.3 or where you expose PayPal to the risk of any regulatory fines by European, US or other authorities for processing your transactions); (emphasis mine, source) So even if the PayPal transfer is not disputed, how can you be sure you are not laundering money? Are you being paid well enough to assume that risk?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e924bb349d88a39b7f61f8246bb3872",
"text": "It may be a scam. But it also may be a company trying to find a person with the same or similar name. They may have followed a trail to her old address, and still not have the correct person. They bought number of old debts at a large discount, and are trying to track down any money they can find. It is best to ignore it, especially if they know it isn't their debt. If they start providing more proof then get interested. If they keep contacting them tell them there is no business relationship and they should stop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0609f1d284b9b9312fac1274ea08a5bf",
"text": "I agree with you: it sounds like a scam. Those terms are too good to be true. Online, it is too easy to pretend to be someone you are not. When choosing a bank to work with, you need to be confident of its legitimacy. Make sure you have heard of it someplace other than their own website and can trust it. In this case, this isn't even a bank; it is just an individual stranger. I can't see how this could possibly be legitimate. With the information that they are asking for, they could potentially impersonate you and steal your money. I would stay away from this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d5b2fbe25a7e017d381403558ff5054",
"text": "\"If it makes you feel any better, I now bank with a credit union. These WF assholes called me one day to tell me that someone had tried to withdraw $500 from my account and that I needed to sign up for a more secure account, of course with a $16 monthly charge. So I did what anybody would do... went to the bank and ask questions right? After I got there and mention the problem they told me that nothing was wrong with my account, that no transactions were attempted and even if they did attempt them and were canceled they would still show up but they didn't. Few minutes later I got another call from that guy and he was telling me that the problem was taken care of and that I didn't need to go to the bank. After that I was just suspicious. Basically what it came down to was that somebody was trying to set me up for accounts that I didn't ask for just so he can get promoted at my expense. They gave me a opportunity to report him but I didn't because I knew him personally, he was one of my \"\"friends\"\" and at the time he had two kids. I didn't want him to lose his job. I told him that what he did was completely fucked up and that you don't do that to people outside of WF. That same day I withdrew all my money. I still remember cutting the conversation short after WF tried to convince me all kinds of ways not to do that. I been with a Credit Union about 3 years now and so far so good.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b55c9ab7182e830d25cd7db9d3e80f7c",
"text": "You should check with the Office of Student Affairs (or equivalent) at your University to see if you can accept Credit Cards. Many will only allow you to accept student organization dues paid in cash, check, or money order. Many universities will also provide your organization with basic operating funds, if you request it. Your first point of contact should be your faculty adviser, though. Your best bet would be to just use cash. Learn where the nearest ATMs are. If you are set on using credit cards, set up a PayPal account and just use it to reimburse the person who fronts the money (cover the markup). Everyone will have to have a PayPal account set up, linked to their credit card. You can avoid fees by using a bank account. If you're so inclined, you can set up a Business account and have a PayPal Debit Card, but you'll want to check with your adviser / University by-laws to see if you're allowed. Don't expect any of these to work as website implementations. As you're a University group, you will undoubtedly be meeting in person such that an exchange of cash/check/money order would be trivial In short, you'll need to check into the rules of your University. Credit cards generally carry processing fees, charged to the merchant, which (on its own) carries some tax implications.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1209e1b168c7d804e5414e471734deb3
|
What benefits are there to having a Pension (Retirement Account) In Ireland?
|
[
{
"docid": "f01fa76692182fc18709149832a89426",
"text": "As you point out, the main benefits of a pension/retirement account over a traditional cash/taxable account are the legal and tax benefits. Most Western countries establish a specific legal definition for an account which is often taxed less or not at all relative to taxable accounts and which contains some protection for the owner in case of a bankruptcy. The typical drawbacks for investing within such structures are limited investment choice, limited withdrawal rights (either in terms of age or rate of withdrawal), and maximum contributions. The benefits are usually very clear, and your decision whether or not to open a pension/retirement account should depend on a careful weighing of the benefits and drawbacks. As to whether you may end up with less than you started, that depends on what you invest in. As with all of finance, you must take more risk to get more return. Although the choices inside a pension/retirement account may be worded somewhat differently, they are usually fundamentally no different than some of the most popular investments available for ordinary taxable accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "352a2c1736f70eefe180dbab02e8999c",
"text": "Here's an Irish government publication that should give you some background information to get you started. In a nutshell, you get tax benefits, but cannot withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa03af2b05fb3ae069d84373a2342695",
"text": "I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d06e0935db6201891c3a8f148f8d0a9d",
"text": "On the face of it, it doesn't look like a very good deal - neither pension not annuity company are in it for the fun of it, so they'll take their cut from your money, and then invest it anyway. The rest depends on what they promise you - if they just promise you market returns then I don't see much sense to do it, you can do it yourself. If they promise you some pre-defined average return not depending on market conditions (and hope to get ahead by actually getting better return and pocket the difference) then it might make sense, if you are not a very proficient investor. This will get you a known benefit you can count on (at least if you get a company with good rating/insurance/etc.) without worrying about markets volatility and having to keep the discipline and calm when markets jump around. It may be hard, especially for somebody of advanced age. Also, there's the part of government adding money - it depends on how much of it is added, is it enough to cover the extra fees?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba545d0ffb72e46b1873ca833d5f71bf",
"text": "I would say that it depends. If you have to do it now, or in the near future, I would keep the pension, as I think the current market is overpriced and approaching bubble status. (And, to interject politics, because I'm pretty sure Trump will screw it up before too long.) If you can take the money out and invest after it crashes, though... Though I'm sure that some people will object to this as market timing, I had a similar opportunity in '09. I took the money, moved it into an IRA invested mostly in index & international funds, and have been quite satisfied with the result.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c567f1b75722e46c44fecbd633807155",
"text": "I would lean towards taking the lump-sum too if that were my situation. However, the value of the sum offered is likely lower than the value of the pension plan would have paid out - otherwise how would it be any advantage to offer it? So, uncertainty about receiving the benefits is reduced, but you're still likely taking a loss vs what was promised. It's better then the pension plan going completely insolvent and paying nothing, but no reason for celebration either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74c020c4969af53f64ab7f5211d86b49",
"text": "\"The gross liabilities (benefit obligation) will still be there, regardless. They are *future* benefits. Sure, you can increase funding to the plan to eliminate the *net* pension liability, but why? The new assets would earn very little. The shortfall is not an excessively large risk. The only reason seems to be the \"\"all-consuming focus on immediate results\"\" which is more rhetoric than reality in this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "470fb0038dad4dcaeae56f7574442cb8",
"text": "This is not an answer to all of your questions but merely an eleaboration on one of your comments: Are there any other areas in the UK that would return rental yields much above 10% net? Shares. I could withdraw the money and buy shares for the dividend income, but it is hard to choose shares that yield more than about 6% and they are volatile. I wrote a post about using shares to invest a pension pot. http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/016/ You may find it of some interest. Of course, the investing would take place within the pension 'wrapper' so you'd only be paying tax on the income taken out each year. The other alternatives you mention suggest paying for the expertise and time of an IFA would be a very economical decision. £1,000 to best use £150,000 seems a bargain to me. Some of the avenues you mention seem very risky from my understanding so someone to determine your tolerances and propose a holistic solution is a good path forward. Best wishes!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1d69eb985a4d50a9c80952015d3bf59",
"text": "\"Why? Simply: because it has been mandated as law, and so you may have no choice in the matter whether to contribute or not. Quoting from GOV.UK – Workplace pensions: ‘Automatic enrolment’ A new law means that every employer must automatically enrol workers into a workplace pension scheme if they: Next: even if you think you will work \"\"until you die\"\", you can still access the money saved in the pension scheme when you attain the required minimum age for withdrawals under your scheme. For instance, that may be age 55, but it may also vary by scheme. Becoming fully retired — as in stopping all work — is not a requirement to access retirement income from your pension scheme. In the eyes of a pension scheme, retirement is typically when you elect to take your income benefits according to the established rules of the scheme. Quoting from nidirect – Working past State Pension age: Continuing in work and your workplace pension If you reached the age at which you can start claiming your workplace pension scheme, you don't need to stop work in order to claim. You have a number of options, including taking some of the pension you've built up while continuing to work for the same employer. As to why things are set up this way: While some younger folk may, today, expect to continue working until death, for a variety of reasons that isn't always possible. Two typical such reasons are: disability, and involuntary unemployment (i.e. willing and able but still can't land the next job). Moreover, plans change. Young workers with health and vitality may expect they'll always feel invincible, but end up learning otherwise over time, and may come to appreciate the savings that were forced upon them. The \"\"forced savings\"\" aspect of state and state-sponsored pension schemes are meant to provide some safety net for those later years when it is a strong possibility that one can't continue to work. The alternative is to be a 100% burden on family and/or society.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81772a0c0197ace840d55cb37d1ca0f5",
"text": "I know folks who considered retiring to another country. Their conclusion was that while base cost of living was lower, the cost of the things that they enjoy doing -- not to mention the cost of spending time with friends they didn't want to give up -- would be sufficiently higher to erase most of the advantages. Those of us who grew up in or close to cities feel much the same way about moving out to less-populated and less-expensive parts of our own country. Basically, when cost of living is high it tends to be because there are more people who want to live there and are competing for resources (and driving prices up). Low cost of living is generally tied to less-desired locations, for the same reasons. IF you can find a location that appeals to you, and if you can get the resources there which your preferred lifestyle requires, this may make sense. For a while there were a number of professional writers moving from the US to Ireland, in part because the Irish tax structure heavily favored writers and other creative artists. (Katherine Kurtz spent several years living in a renovated Irish castle.) I'm not sure how many have stayed there after the novelty wore off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d5a592bd8a7bc03d14a5595c15a73ad",
"text": "\"Diversify between high risk, medium risks investments as well as \"\"safe\"\" ones like bonds authored directly from the EU. All in all you re much better off than lending money to the bank through a savings account for no more than 1% in interest rate(given the current NL situation). Congratulations on becoming financially independent(your investments covering your living expenses) in as low as 9-15years from now.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd2d8b673f494218652fcc71df709fac",
"text": "Doesn't work like that. You're taxed on the lower band until 32ish and the balance is at 40%. Use this link below to calc your tax http://services.deloitte.ie/tc/ 30k = 25,310 after tax // effective rate of 15.5% 40k = 31,170 after tax // effective rate of 22% So you're gross raise of 33% will be worth 23% net to you. You also have tax credits/USC/PRSI to think about - you seem like you haven't a breeze about the Irish tax system so I'd type PAYE & Citizens Information into Google and start reading up on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1a5c32d5c98b0c4935cb25dfbecff85",
"text": "Many investment companies are also offering target retirement date portfolios to invest in. They manage reducing the risk over time so you don't have to worry about it if you choose not to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e51ea023afbbb4165211ed5eb8127b9e",
"text": "If you havent yet maxed out your ISA, then its a no-brainer. You get excellent tax rebates and its silly not to take advantage of these before considering self investing in shares. Note that even if your ISA is maxed out, the economic turbulence means that investing in individual stocks is an intimidating place for beginners right now. The FSA is also looking at revising the average percentages used for pension, from 7% for adventurous investments, down to 5% or 6%, so there is industry wide recognition that on average the stock market is going to be a little less lucrative than it was a few years ago. Thats not to say you cant still make a whopping profit, but the chances of you doing so as a first time investor are remote to say the least. My advice would be to look seriously into some of the social lending sites, where you can still easily get a 7% return with minimal risk. Whilst I do have a portfolio which is performing well overall (I am a very speculative investor), I am moving a lot of funds into Zopa.com, as I am averaging 7% return with a lot less time, effort and risk than the stockmarket. Whatever you decide, I think its time you thought about consulting an IFA. They can help you understand what sort of risk you are willing to tolerate, which is a very important aspect of investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f732fef158303e2fc765717929569a79",
"text": "If I gift 50k to my Father who is retired but getting pension, will I get a 50k tax benefit? If Yes, then under which section would it be? 80C or other? There is no tax benefit for you on the 50K. This can't be deducted under any section. You have to pay tax. if Father's income i.e. Pension+gift doesn't come under tax slab and he doesn't wish to invest in tax saving scheme would I still be getting benefit? See above you do not get any tax benefit. Other Notes: Edit: Start from zero, you don't have any money. Say for the year 2015-2016, you get Rs 30 lacs salary. After deductions [PF, etc] you pay [say approx] Rs 10 lacs as tax. Now you have Rs 20 lacs. Assuming you survive on thin air and save Rs 20 lacs. If you invest this 20 lacs into FD. For the year 2016-2017 you will get Rs 2 lacs as interest on 20 lacs. Plus you have salary of Rs 30 lacs. So now your total income is 32 lacs and your tax will go up by around Rs 60,000 [approx 30% of Rs 2 lacs]. Instead if you gift this Rs 20 lacs to your father, there is no gift tax for you or your father. Now your father invested this Rs 20 lacs in FD, he will get an interest of Rs 2 lacs. This can be tax free to him if he does not have any other income. If he has say an income of Rs 2.5 lacs, then he has to pay tax on the Rs 2 lacs at 10% ... Now he can gift you the Rs 2 lacs for 2016-2017 there is no gift tax to you or him.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b754be6bdd035e50500c7ad7fb974038",
"text": "In the UK you have an allowance of £40,000 per annum for tax relief into a pension. This amount includes both your and your employer's contributions. If you earn more than £150,000 per annum this allowance starts to reduce and if you earn less than the allowance, your allowance is limited to what you earn. You can also carry over unused allowance from up to 3 years previously. If you stick within this allowance you won't pay tax on your pension contributions, if you go over the excess will be subject to tax. Salary exchange normally lets you avoid the National Insurance value of your contribution being taxed. If you paid your own money into your pension (without going through salary exchange), your contributions would have the 20% basic rate of tax credited to them and if you're a higher rate taxpayer you could reclaim the difference between the basic rate of tax and the higher rate of tax you pay but the National Insurance you've paid on your own money would not be reclaimable. You can't get the money back you've paid into your pension till you are are 58 (given that you are 27 now), the minimum age has risen from its historic 55 for your age group. That's the pension trade off, you forgo tax now in the expectation that, once retired, you will be paying tax at a lower rate (because your income will be lower and you are much less likely to be subject to higher rate taxation) in return for locking in your money till you're older. Your pension income will be subject to tax when you eventually take it. There are other options such as ISAs which have lower annual limits (£20,000 currently) and on which your contributions do not attract tax relief, but which are not taxed as income when you eventually spend them. ISAs and pensions are not mutually exclusive so if you have the money, you can do both. It's up to you to determine what mix of savings will be appropriate to generate income for your eventual retirement. If you are living in some other country when you retire your pension will be paid net of UK tax. You might then be able to claim (or pay) any difference between that and your local tax rate depending on what agreement exists between the UK government and the other country's government.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
25d24aa38f4212477c13d11e292296c9
|
Why do 1099 forms take so long for brokerages to prepare and send out?
|
[
{
"docid": "b693d1e182c3ed28bb173f8f81004e15",
"text": "\"There are probably many correct answers to this question, but for most people, the main reason is qualified dividends. To be a qualified dividend (and therefore eligible for lower tax rates), the dividend-paying stock or fund must be held for \"\"more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date\"\". Since many stocks and funds pay out dividends at the end of the year, that means it takes until mid- to late February to determine if you held them, and therefore made the dividend qualified. Brokerages don't want to send out 1099s in January and then possibly have to send out revised versions if you decide to sell something that paid a dividend in December that otherwise would have been qualified.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00fd19472be34909b70a36447dd0f38e",
"text": "The simple answer is that brokerages have to close the books at the end of the year before they can send out the tax forms (what this entails is off topic for this site). I doubt that printing and mailing the forms takes very long. It is simply the process of reconciling the books so they don't have to send out corrected forms if errors are corrected during that reconciliation process.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c7205cbaecf85917426224c0955e77ce",
"text": "\"For any large company, there's a lot of activity, and if you sell at \"\"market\"\" your buy or sell will execute in seconds within a penny or two of the real-time \"\"market\"\" price. I often sell at \"\"limit\"\" a few cents above market, and those sell within 20 minutes usually. For much smaller companies, obviously you are beholden to a buyer also wanting that stock, but those are not on major exchanges. You never see whose buy order you're selling into, that all happens behind the curtain so to speak.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4564883eefc225e8c2d7e3d01ae46a2f",
"text": "It's a covered call. When I want to create a covered call position, I don't need to wait before the stock transaction settles. I enter it as one trade, and they settle at different times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "614098cccc7c2833b8fc3c2452d2e12c",
"text": "\"Ditto @GradeEhBacon, but let me add a couple of comments: But more relevantly: GradeEhBacon mentioned transaction costs. Yes. Many tax shelters require setting up accounts, doing paperwork, etc. Often you have to get a lawyer or accountant to do this right. If the tax shelter could save you $1 million a year in taxes, it makes sense to pay a lawyer $10,000 to set it up right. If it could save you $100 a year in taxes, paying $10,000 to set it up would be foolish. In some cases the tax savings would be so small that it wouldn't be worth the investment of spending $20 on a FedEx package to ship the paperwork. Inconvenience. Arguably this is a special case of transaction costs: the cost of your time. Suppose I knew that a certain tax shelter would save me $100 a year in taxes, but it would take me 20 hours a year to do the paperwork or whatever to manage it. I probably wouldn't bother, because my free time is worth more than $5 an hour to me. If the payoff was bigger or if I was poorer, I might be willing. Complexity. Perhaps a special case of 3. If the rules to manage the tax shelter are complicated, it may not be worth the trouble. You have to spend a bunch of time, and if you do it wrong, you may get audited and slapped with fines and penalties. Even if you do it right, a shelter might increase your chance of being audited, and thus create uncertainty and anxiety. I've never intentionally cheated on my taxes, but every year when I do my taxes I worry, What if I make an honest mistake but the government decides that it's attempted fraud and nails me to the wall? Qualification. Again, as others have noted, tax shelters aren't generally, \"\"if you fill out this form and check box (d) you get 50% off on your taxes\"\". The shelters exist because the government decided that it would be unfair to impose taxes in this particular situation, or that giving a tax break encourages investment, or some other worthy goal. (Sometimes that worthy goal is \"\"pay off my campaign contributors\"\", but that's another subject.) The rules may have unintended loopholes, but any truly gaping ones tend to get plugged. So if, say, they say that you get a special tax break for investing in medical research, you can't just declare that your cigarette and whiskey purchases are medical research and claim the tax break. Or you talked about off-shore tax havens. The idea here is that the US government cannot tax income earned in another country and that has never even entered the US. If you make $10 in France and deposit it in a French bank account and spend it in France, the US can't tax that. So American companies sometimes set up bank accounts outside the US to hold income earned outside the US, so they don't have to bring it into the US and pay the high US tax rate. (US corporate taxes are now the highest of any industrialized country.) You could, I suppose, open an account in the Caymans and deposit the income you earned from your US job there. But if the money was earned in the US, working at a factory or office in the US, by a person living in the US, the IRS is not going to accept that this is foreign income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5dca99a685e3a33d3939c04c8107c93",
"text": "From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fde0a3995bf32d9d9647f1f627bac675",
"text": "Am I required to send form 1099 to non-US citizens who are not even residing in the US? Since they're not required to file US taxes, do I still have to send the form to them? That's tricky. You need to get W8/W9 from them, and act accordingly. You may need to withhold 30% (or different percentage, depending on tax treaty they claim on W8). If you withhold taxes, you also need to file form 1042. I suggest you talk to a tax professional. Is it fine to expose my ITIN (taxpayer identification number) to individuals or companies who I send the form to them. Since the form requires me to write my TIN/EIN, what would be the risks of this and what precautions should be taken to avoid inappropriate/illegal use? No, it is not OK. But if you pay these people directly - you don't have much choice, so deal with it. Get a good insurance for identity theft, and don't transact with people you don't trust. One alternative would be to pay through a payment processor (Paypal or credit cards) - see your next question. I send payments via PayPal and wire transfer. Should I send form 1099-MISC or 1099-K? Paypal is a corporation, so you don't need to send 1099 to Paypal. Whatever Paypal sends to others - it will issue the appropriate forms. Similarly if you use a credit card for payment. When you send money through Paypal - you don't send money directly to your business counterparts. You send money to Paypal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b49360f5452c74aba4b3d5242a832bdf",
"text": "You should not have to wait 3 days to sell the stock after purchase. If you are trading with a cash account you will have to wait for the sale to settle (3 business days) before you can use those funds to purchase other stock. If you meet the definition of a pattern day trader which is 4 or more day trades in 5 business days then your brokerage will require you to have a minimum of $25,000 in funds and a margin account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af53fe1b8df5ef47b581399e1b92a747",
"text": "\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07442b678168e578b73bde5a1fd0fb25",
"text": "My bank (USAA) moves money to and from a USAA brokerage account instantly. They also have instant transfers from their money market funds to checking, savings, and brokerage. It takes the 3 days to go to another institution, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c11adb5071b17afcac09a15263f2afe",
"text": "I did this for the last tax year so hopefully I can help you. You should get a 1099-B (around the same time you're getting your W-2(s)) from the trustee (whichever company facilitates the ESPP) that has all the information you need to file. You'll fill out a Schedule D and (probably) a Form 8949 to describe the capital gains and/or losses from your sale(s). It's no different than if you had bought and sold stock with any brokerage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bf38299a224a2ca9d6a6c7ecb4498dd",
"text": "\"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear \"\"instantly\"\" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called \"\"clearing & settling\"\". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term \"\"bankers hours\"\" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30d26506281284eab2c895db7afc9247",
"text": "The IRA contribution for the year are allowed until the tax day of that year. I.e.: you can contribute for 2015 until April 15th, 2016 (or whatever the first business day is after that, if the 15th is a holiday). You'll have to explicitly designate your contribution for 2015, since some of the IRA providers may automatically designate the current year unless you explicitly say otherwise. If that happens - it will be very hard to fix later, so pay attention when you're making the contribution. You get a couple of things from your IRA provider: Form 5498 - details your contributions for the year, account FMV, and RMD details. You can see the actual form here. You don't always get this form, if you didn't contribute anything and no RMD is required for you. Since the last day to contribute is April 15th, these forms are usually being sent out around mid-May. But you should know how much you've contributed by the tax day without it, obviously, so this is only for the IRS matching and your record-tracking. Form 1099-R includes information about distributions (including withdrawals and roll-overs). You may not get this form if you didn't take any money out of your IRA. These come out around end of January.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e42eb3ea9a05e96191e2a1ab5b50adcb",
"text": "My take on this is that this reduces your liquidity risk. Stocks, bonds and many other investment vehicles on secondary markets you may think of are highly liquid but they still require that markets are open and then an additional 3-5 business days to settle the transaction and for funds to make their way to your bank account. If you require funds immediately because of an emergency, this 3-5 business days (which gets longer as week-ends and holidays are in the way) can cause a lot of discomfort which may be worth a small loss in potential ROI. Think of your car breaking down or a water pipe exploding in your home and having to wait for the stock sale to process before you can make the payment. Admittedly, you have other options such as margin loans and credit cards that can help absorb the shock in such cases but they may not be sufficient or cause you to pay interest or fees if left unpaid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34c6ffd4f6937b9f699694625fb90cca",
"text": "you either tell your financial department about them (e.g. I used to get a student's tax discount), or you file them separately. But you don't have to file anything by default. That is a comment connected to the question. In the united states you can almost achieve this. 90% of the numbers on my tax form are automated. The W-2s are sent to the IRS, the 1099-s for my non retirement accounts are also sent. The two biggest items that take time are charities, and the educational benefits. Nobody has to claim every deduction they are entitled to. They must claim all the income, and decide to take the standard deduction. It would probably take less than an hour to finish the families taxes: both federal and state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "160028dad1a8e6ec1b09f8395175d164",
"text": "In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "893682084a5cd9dc30d884eb4ca6a379",
"text": "\"Usually the new broker will take care of this for you. It can take a couple of weeks. If you are planning to go with Vanguard, you probably want to actually get an account at Vanguard, as Vanguard funds usually aren't \"\"No Transaction Fee\"\" funds with many brokers. If you are planning to invest in ETFs, you'll get more flexibility with a broker.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
860eb0d44d030e301dd9e49ff18f9241
|
How do I fold side-income into our budget so my husband doesn't know?
|
[
{
"docid": "3a4a8dd5a57c38287ab10c0c54e8cf5d",
"text": "\"Maybe you can just hang onto the cash and upgrade the things you buy for cash now a bit. Buy the better cut of meat, the nicer pair of shoes, etc. Since you have no trouble with bending the truth a bit.. if challenged, the shoes were \"\"on sale\"\". And no you must have lost the receipt. Not that I'm advocating it, but the only time I notice my better half's shoe habit is when a garbage bag of the old ones goes out the door.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3950f1ad4e77c82d99f9948bacb7260b",
"text": "These earnings will likely have tax implications, depending on where in the world you are. So, your budget concerns not nearly as important as having an honest conversation about money with your husband. Better for him to be mad about the truth than to continue the lie, and potentially have this become a much larger legal, not just marital, problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d2af624467f55f94a5ba267e86019b7",
"text": "I doubt that it is possible to keep something like this secret from your husband forever. If you get away with it once, I'd guess you'll probably try it again, and sooner or later he'll find out. He'll notice that things show up in the house that aren't accounted for in the budget, or he'll see a statement from your secret bank account, or one of your friends will carelessly say something about it when he's around, etc. I found out about some of my ex-wife's secret finances when she wasn't home one day, I got the mail, and found a credit card bill for an account I knew nothing about. If the preconditions on the question are that you're not going to tell him the truth (and you're not going to get a divorce), I think the only realistic answer is that there is no way of keeping this secret with a high probability of success.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a3ac3834ecfdcdd0f6bcca73ae4e4620",
"text": "First: great job on getting it together. This is good for your family in any respect I can think of. This is a life long process and skill, but it will pay off for you and yours if you work on it. Your problem is that you don't seem to know where you money goes. You can't decide how whacky your expenses are until you know what they are. Looking at just your committed expenses and ignore the other stuff might be the problem here. You state that you feel you live modestly, but you need to be able to measure it completely to decide. I would suggest an online tool like mint.com (if you can get it in your country) because it will go back for 90 days and get transactions for you. If you primarily work in cash, this isn't helpful, but based on your credit card debt I am hoping not. (Although, a cash lifestyle would be good if you tend to overspend.) Take the time and sort your transactions into categories. Don't setup a budget, just sort them out. I like to limit the number of categories for clarity sake, especially to start. Don't get too crazy, and don't get too detailed at first. If you buy a magazine at the grocery store, just call it groceries. Once you know what you spend, then you can setup a budget for the categories. If somethings are important, create new categories. If one category is a problem, then break it down and find the specific issue. The key is that you budget not be more than you earn but also representative of what you spend. Follow up with mint every other day or every weekend so the categorization is a quick and easy process. Put it on your iPhone and do it at every lunch break. Share the information with your spouse and talk about it often.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "810435c5809639511389c5fc99eb133e",
"text": "\"While Googling answers for a similar personal dilemma I found Mvelopes. I already have a budget but was looking for a digital way for my husband and I to track our purchases so we know when we've \"\"used the envelope\"\". It's a free app.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f69a7f2f8a1c722e5a19a4cc9862faeb",
"text": "You can fairly simply make a spreadsheet in your favorite spreadsheet application (or in Google Docs if you want portability). I like to make an overview page that shows how much I take in per month and what fixed bills come out of that, then break the remaining total into four to get a weekly budget. Then, I make one page per month with four columns (one per week), with each row being a category. Sum the categories at the bottom, and subtract from your weekly total: voila, a quick reference of how much you can spend that week without going over budget. I then make a page for each month that lists what I bought and how much I spent on it, so I can trace where my money's gone; the category total is just a summation of the items from that page that belong in that category. Once you have a system, stop checking your bank balance except to ensure your paycheck is going in alright. Use the spreadsheet to determine how much you can spend at any time. Then make sure you pay off everything on the card before the end of the month so you don't incur interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab2208969e49ffbce1072ac81bfff082",
"text": "\"Your heart is in the right place. Especially since they've got a kid. If you really want to help them, have the uncomfortable conversation with them that they need to have about money. Specifically, how to develop and stick to a budget. It is a painful, but valuable lesson for life. Depending on what type of relationship you have with them, you can approach it in different ways... just giving them friendly advice is perhaps the lightest \"\"touch\"\" you could have... but might not make the impression you need. If they are asking you for money, I would personally make it a condition that they work through their personal budget with you, and then start living within that budget. If you're lending money, it's not too much to ask to follow their accounts or finances so that you can see that they're on the right track. If you're a close enough friend, you could really walk them through it and help them to develop the habits of: estimating how much they will earn in a month estimating how much they should spend in a month, tracking how much they are actually spending, and comparing how much they actually earn with how much they actually spend. Doing this every month until they get out of the weeds. They should at least do it every 3 months when they're in good financial shape, but even then each month doesn't hurt. Setting them up with something like Mint.com (if they're in the US) would be a handy place to start. You can share the login information with them if they trust you... and then they can change it once whatever agreed-upon terms come around. It sounds weird, I know, but I have helped two friends out of credit-card debt this way. The hardest part is getting around the discomfort/taboo/shame of them knowing they need help and not wanting to accept it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "187d6926e20a28d2636f7193014e3bfa",
"text": "The Avalanche method does not work because most people don't have enough money to make an avalanche. If you somehow had a windfall that was greater or equal to your highest credit card balance, then by all means pay that one off. However, most people do not have that kind of situation. Instead they should use the debt snow ball method. They only have regular income that is typically much smaller then the balances. Another part of your plan that is especially troubling is that you are continuing to utilize credit cards. You need to cut them up, and stop using them. First of course save $1000 for a small emergency fund, the pay them off smallest to largest. Do a budget each and every month. Work an extra job or three. Any extra money that hubby brings in goes towards one of the credit cards. BTW you don't have a math problem you have a behavior problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d712e4318ff47ff4c92c5ddf4fa22d",
"text": "I'm not certain I understand what you're trying to do, but it sounds like you're trying to create a business expense for paying off your personal debt. If so - you cannot do that. It will constitute a tax fraud, and if you have additional partners in the LLC other than you and your spouse - it may also become an embezzlement issue. Re your edits: Or for example, can you create a tuition assistance program within your company and pay yourself out of that for the purposes of student loan money. Explicitly forbidden. Tuition assistance program cannot pay more than 5% of its benefits to owners. See IRS pub 15-B. You would think that if there was a way to just incorporate and make your debts pre-tax - everyone would be doing it, wouldn't you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c7179b41c1d08a2b507c2bc0e6835a8",
"text": "\"If my wife and I tried this, we'd call it grounds for divorce. However, I think most long term couples actually do this, and it is just a budget. It is common practice for two spouses to deposit money into a single checking account. All of the household expenses are then paid from that single account. Same as you describe: if I spend money from the joint checking that is less money available to my wife. Based on your dollar amount, I'd have to say great work on thinking about saving early on in life. I think though, if you are actually starting out, getting into the habit of saving a \"\"dime of every dollar\"\" would be more beneficial. At some point your income will increase, and when it does so should your savings. By \"\"paying yourself first\"\" your savings will keep pace with your spending and you will be a happier person when you income starts to fall again.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc26d4a800bea172012b60ec4364dd83",
"text": "Do a monthly budget, unique to each month, before the month begins, spend all of your money on paper. Use envelopes to help you keep track of how much you have left for things you buy throughout the month. Have separate envelopes for things like groceries, restaurants, clothing, entertainment. Put the amount of money for each category in cash in the envelope. Only spend the money out of the correct envelope and don't mix and mingle between envelopes. Pay in cash, with real money. Don't use credit or debit cards, it's proven you spend more when you are not paying with cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f4799662e6609d40e0197bf2d5d1714",
"text": "Other than the two answers (both of which recommend waiting until marriage to actually combine finances, and which I agree with), there's the general question: how does a couple choose to manage finances? In our marriage, it's me. I'm more numbers-minded than my spousal-unit. I'm also more a sticker for time. I work and spousal-unit does not. We had some good friends -- upon marriage, spouse1 felt like he should take on the role. He went on a several-week trip (leaving spouse2 at home), and upon returning home asked spouse2 about the late fees. Spouse2 was appalled. Spouse2 ended up keeping the job of managing household finances. There's enough pieces to the puzzle that it can be divided any way you choose -- any way that works for you and your spouse/virtual-spouse. One other point: talk about how to manage your money, before you marry. Dave Ramsey recommends a strict monthly budget. I like listening to Dave Ramsey, but we've never had a budget. Instead, we agreed during marriage counseling two things:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2c08bc875b91c7ae9d48feef6e07b0e",
"text": "First, talk to your husband about this. You really need to persuade him that you need to be saving, and get him to agree on how and how much. Second, if you husband is not good at saving, work on getting something set aside automatically - ideally deducted from a paycheck or transferred to a savings account automatically. If he is the kind of person who might dip into that account, try to make it a place he can't withdraw from Third, get some advice, possibly training, on budgeting. Buy a book, take a video course: even start by watching some TV shows on getting out of debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b13393accc83213c5973089554b85d3",
"text": "\"A budget that you both agree on is a great goal. X% to charity, y% to savings, $z a month to a reserve for house repairs, and so on. Your SO is likely to agree with this, especially if you say it like this: I know you're concerned that I might want to give too much to charity. Why don't we go through the numbers and work out a cap on what I can give away each year? Like, x% of our gross income or y% of our disposable income? Work out x and y in advance so you say real percentages in this \"\"meeting request\"\", but be prepared to actually end up at a different x and y later. Perhaps even suggest an x and y that are a little lower than you would really wish for. If your SO thinks you earn half what you really do, then mental math if you say 5% will lead to half what you want to donate, but don't worry about that at the moment. That could even work in your favour if you've already said you want to give $5000 (or $50,000) a year and mental math with the percentage leads your SO to $2500 (or $25,000), (s)he might think \"\"yes, if we have this meeting I can rein in that crazy generosity.\"\" Make sure your budget is complete. You don't want your SO worrying that if the furnace wears out or the roof needs to be replaced, the money won't be there because you gave it away. Show how these contingencies, and your retirement, will all be taken care of. Show how much you are setting aside to spend on vacations, and so on. That will make it clear that there is room to give to those who are not as fortunate as you. If your SO's motivations are only worry that there won't be money when it's needed, you will not only get permission to donate, you'll get a happier SO. (For those who don't know how this can happen, I knew a woman just like this. The only income she believed they had was her husband's pension. He had several overseas companies and significant royalty income, but she never accounted for that when talking of what they could afford. Her mental image of their income was perhaps a quarter of what it really was, leading to more than one fight about whether they could take a trip, or give a gift, that she thought was too extravagant. For her own happiness I wish he had gone through the budget with her in detail.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d5e4e1d4f9c4dd063b662a9cce9501c",
"text": "\"If you ask ten different couples what they do, depending on a variety of factors, you'll get anywhere between two and ten different answers. One personal finance blogger that I read swears by the fact that he and his wife keep their finances totally separate. His wife has her own retirement account, he has his. His wife has her own checking and savings, he has his. They pay fifty-fifty for expenses and each buy their own \"\"toys\"\" from their own accounts. He views this as valuable for allowing them to have their own personal finance styles, as his wife is a very conservative investor and he is more generous. My spouse and I have mostly combined finances, and view all of our money as joint (even though there are a smattering of accounts between us with just one name on them as holdovers from before we were married). Almost all of our purchasing decisions except regular groceries are joint. I couldn't imagine it any other way. It leaves us both comfortable with our financial situation and forces us to be on the same page with regards to our lifestyle decisions. There's also the ideological view that since we believe marriage united us, we try to live that out. That's just us, though. We don't want to force it on others. Some couples find a balance between joint accounts and his and her fun money stashes. You might find yet another arrangement that works for you, such as the one you already described. What's going to be important is that you realize that all couples have the same six basic arguments, finances being one of them. The trick is in how you disagree. If you can respectfully and thoughtfully discuss your finances together to find the way that has the least friction for you, you're doing well. Some amount of friction is not just normal, it's almost guaranteed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2da9c6cb77c6d43459a25ff16f45edfb",
"text": "I'll chime in and say that my wife and I thought this was a really dumb idea, until we tried it. I was keeping track of everything in my checkbook ledger, but having the physical money in the envelopes really does work! We thought it would be more hassle than it's worth, and there were hiccups the first month or two, but in the end we both agree this is what started our movement towards responsible money management and debt reduction. We have the following Categories: Obviously, ymmv, but the point is to take any categories in your budget that are hard to budget for, as they vary from month to month, and just set aside an amount form your paycheck, in cash, for each one of those categories in an envelope. What I've noticed is that by putting the money aside up front, it's MUCH easier to stick to the budget. We'll often shuffle money around in the envelopes if priorities change for a particular month as well, so rather than taking money away from an extra payment on a debt or our planned savings transfer, which would have been our default action pre-envelopes, we can just move $XX from Date Night into Groceries if we have to, hence, planning out how we'll spend our money, budgeting, has gotten a LOT easier since adopting this system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a6ec7acfcc016deaeedb5070d157e0a",
"text": "I won't answer in a detailed manner because most people at this site like answers with certain bias' on these questions, like pool resources always relative to which partner is asking. If you follow the above advice, you are hoping things work out. Great! What if they don't? It will be very messy. Unlike most of my peers, I did NOT follow the above advice and had a very clean exit with both of us feeling very good (and no lawyers got involved either; win-win for both of us with all the money we saved). One assumption people make is the person with the lowest income has the strictest limits. This is not always true; I grew up in poverty, but have a very high income and detest financial waste. I can live on about €12,000 a year and even though my partner made a little less, my partner liked to spend. Counter intuitive, right? I was supposed to be the spender because I had a large income, but I wasn't. Also, think about an example with food - sharing expenses. Is it fair for one partner to split whey protein if one partner consumes it, but the other doesn't (answer: in my view, no)? My advice based on your questions: Balance the frugal vs. spendthrift mentality rather than income ratios. If you're both frugal, then focus on income ratios - but one may be more frugal than the other and the thought of spending €300 a month on housing is just insane to a person like me, whereas to most it's too little. Are you both exactly the same with this mentality - and be honest? Common costs that you both agree on can be easily split 50-50 and you can often benefit from economies of scale (like internet, cell phone). Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. This is so healthy for a relationship. My partner and I split and we both still really love each other. We're headed in different directions, but we did not want to end bitterly. What you wrote is part of why we ended so well; we both were very independent financially. Kids are going to be a challenge because they come with expenses that partners don't always agree on. What do you and her think of childcare, for instance? You really want to know all this upfront; again a frugal vs. spendthrift mindset could cause some big tensions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84466d66769008712af907a5df6f9568",
"text": "open a bank account under the business name and put tthe money in there You can probably simply speak to the banker about having a business account and setting aside money for taxes,, etc no rocket science there just don't lie about your income is most important, or many It's not how much you make its how much you deposit in a bank, that's the first thing the tax man might look at IMO",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3bcfa97f2606d9ea07a2d4b91efa35af
|
Should I remodel or buy a bigger house?
|
[
{
"docid": "39d5031d5986136c4c29598f88e3bb45",
"text": "After a 6% commission to sell, you have $80K in equity. 20% down on a $400K house. 5% down will likely cost you PMI, and I don't know that you'll ever see a 3.14% rate. The realtor may very well have knowledge of the cost to finish a basement, but I don't ask my doctor for tax advice, and I'd not ask a realtor for construction advice. My basement flooring was $20/sqft for a gym quality rubber tile. You can also get $2/sqft carpet. I'd take the $15K number with a grain of salt until I got real bids. What's there now? Poured cement? Is there clearance to put in a proper subfloor and still have adequate ceiling height? There are a lot of details that you need to research to do it right. That said, the move to a bigger house impacts your ability to save to the extent that you are taking too large a risk. The basement finish, even if $20K, is just a bit more than the commission on your home. I like the idea of sticking it out. Once the nanny is gone, enjoy the extra income, and use the money to boost your savings and emergency funds. As I read your question again, I suggest you cut the college funding in favor of the emergency fund. What good is a funded college account if you have no funds to sustain you through a period of unemployment? There's a lot to be gained in holding tight for these 3 years. It seems that what's too small for 5 would be spacious once the nanny is gone and the basement added. The cost of a too-big house is enormous over the long run. It's going to rise in value with inflation, but no more, and has all the added costs that you've mentioned. On a personal note, I'm in a large house, with a dining room that's used 2 or 3 times a year, and a living room (different from family room) that is my dog's refuge, but we never go in there. In hindsight, a house 2/3 the size would have been ideal. Finishing the basement doesn't just buy you time, it eliminates the need for the larger house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52b7a589ad50a64772be94580a1852e0",
"text": "I am quite sure you can set up an office in your basement for a lot less than $15,000. Don't build any walls, install any flooring, or upgrade the ceiling. Just install more lights and plugs. Set up your desks, bookshelves and what not in whatever corner is furthest from noises like the laundry room or the furnace. The kids and the nanny get the main floor - just let the whole living room be a giant playroom, for example. This gives you the separation you need to work at home, but you can hear if something really needs your attention. When the kids go off to school, you can refinish the basement into a playroom for kids who don't always need supervision, using the money you are no longer spending on the nanny to install carpeting, real walls, a drop ceiling and so on. Your office stuff can move up to the main floor or to a spare room upstairs if you had one but it wasn't usable during the baby years when upstairs generally has to be quiet. As the kids get older the basement can get tailored to what preteens and teens like. This is essentially what we did, and our square footages and child counts match yours almost precisely. We did eventually convert our garage to carpeted and finished space, and it spent time as an office with staff coming in each day, then some time as a teen playroom (think video games and loud music) after the business rented office space outside the house, but if you don't intend to hire staff for your business you don't need to do this part. We did the majority of the basement wiring ourselves and got an electrician to hook it into the panel and check our work. The budget would probably be less than 10% of the guess from your real estate agent.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ee25de70ae32a532f1c8f04baf184b60",
"text": "Unless the taxes are above 3000 per year it looks like a good deal to buy (the 30 year mtg) You could also consider getting the 30 year loan and add additional principal to your payments. It looks like your PMI might be about $50 per month. You will get to deduct over $3000 in interest payments the first year as well as the real estate taxes. Depending on your tax rate that might be something like $100 per month or so of incentive to chose buying over renting. The big issue to consider is the risk of big ticket items to repair. You should keep a fund for this kind of thing... water heater, roof, fridge, cesspool, etc. good luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18200e84958930b5d0301287d46e7338",
"text": "\"I would strongly try to influence circumstances so that buying is feasible. That means: Buy something where it is likely that you can resell it at the same price or even higher - or, at the least for significantly more than \"\"total cost of ownership - rent payed elsewhere\"\". For example, if it is in an area where you have good reasons to assume that prices will go up in the future. Or if the object needs refurbishing and you are sure that you can do it yourself. You will, no doubt, sell it later. You will near certainly not live in such a small house for all time. So the question of \"\"whether\"\" you will sell it is moot. So, when you have a potential house to buy, you will have to calculate everything very carefully, with an estimate of how long you will stay. You need to make your calculation as optimistic/pessimistic as you like (this is more a question of your character). Whatever calculation comes out better, wins. It goes without saying that if you miscalculate (for example, overestimating your ability or time to refurbish; forgetting to calculate non-obvious costs of refurbishing; being surprised by hidden damage to the object; misjudging the price development in the area) you run a considerable risk. So, the question of whether you are able to calculate the risks correctly will need to influence the calculation itself (add 20% or whatever risk buffer if you are not sure, etc.). But the potential is for you to have a very good start in the whole financial game of your life. Your house will likely be for a considerable time the biggest single part of costs in your life, and getting that under control from the get-go is a huge benefit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1fe91bd871e5aa41bb2604ae5b2023e",
"text": "\"Trying to determine what the best investment option is when buying a home is like predicting the stock market. Not likely to work out. Forget about the \"\"investment\"\" part of buying a home and look at the quality of life, monthly/annual financial burden, and what your goals are. Buy a home that you'll be happy living in and in an area you like. Buy a home with the plan being to remain in that home for at least 6 years. If you're planning on having kids, then buy a home that will accommodate that. If you're not planning on living in the same place at least 6 years, then buying might not be the best idea, and certainly might not be the best \"\"investment\"\". You're buying a home that will end up having emotional value to you. This isn't like buying a rental property or commercial real estate. Chances are you won't lose money in the long run, unless the market crashes again, but in that case everyone pretty much gets screwed so don't worry about it. We're not in a housing market like what existed in decades past. The idea of buying a home so that you'll make money off it when you sell it isn't really as reliable a practice as it once was. Take advantage of the ridiculously low interest rates, but note that if you wait, they're not likely to go up by an amount that will make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. My family and I went through the exact same thought process you're going through right now. We close on our new house tomorrow. We battled over renting somewhere - we don't have a good rental market compared to buying here, buying something older for less money and fixing it up - we're HGTV junkies but we realized we just don't have the time or emotional capacity to deal with that scenario, or buying new/like new. There are benefits and drawbacks to all 3 options, and we spent a long time weighing them and eventually came to a conclusion that was best for us. Go talk to a realtor in your area. You're under no obligation to use them, but you can get a better feel for your options and what might best suit you by talking to a professional. For what it's worth, our realtor is a big fan of Pulte Homes in our area because of their home designs and quality. We know some people who have bought in that neighborhood and they're very happy. There are horror stories too, same as with any product you might buy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca9cdf23b1db6fb5ca4fee410435c107",
"text": "First of all, congratulations on your home purchase. The more equity you build in your house, the more of the sale price you get out of it when you move to your next house. This will enable you to consume more house in the future. Think of it as making early payments towards your next down payment. Another option is to save up a chunk of money and recast your mortgage, paying down the principal and having the resulting amount re-amortized to provide you with a lower monthly payment. You may be able to do this at least once during your time in the house, and if you do it early enough it can potentially help your savings in other areas. On the other hand, it is possible given today's low interest rates for mortgages that in other forms of investments (such as index funds) you could make more on the money you'd be putting towards your extra payments. Then you would have more money in savings when you go to sell this house and buy the next one that you would in equity if you didn't go that route. This is riskier than building equity in your home, but potentially has a bigger pay-off. You do the trade-offs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a124946eb7dc8c8a9cb3c3cc6b64bf69",
"text": "\"As others have said, congratulations on saving up 75K in cash while seemingly not neglecting other areas of personal finance. Considering that only 15% of Americans have more than 10K saved this is quite a feat. source If you sell your old house, and buy the new one you will still be in really good financial shape. No need to comment further. Renting your current home and buying a new home introduces a great amount of risk into your life. The risk in this case is mitigated by cash. As others have pointed out, you will need to save a lot more to remove an acceptable amount of risk. Here is what I see: So without paying off your existing house I would see a minimum savings account balance of about double of what you have now. Once you purchase the new house, the amount would be reduced by the down payment, so you will only have about 50K sitting around. The rental emergency fund may be a little light depending on how friendly your state is to landlords. Water heaters break, renters don't pay, and properties can sit vacant. Also anytime you move into a new business there will be mistakes made that are solved by writing checks. Do you have experience running rentals? You might be better off to sell your existing home, and move into a more expensive home than what you are suggesting. You can continue to win at money without introducing a new factor into your life. Alternatively, if you are \"\"bitten by the real estate bug\"\" you could mitigate a lot risk by buying a property that is of similar value to your current home or even less expensive. You can then choose which home to live in that makes the most financial sense. For example some choose to live in the more dilapidated home so they can do repairs as time permits. To me upgrading the home you live in, and renting an expensivish home for a rental is too much to do in such a short time frame. It is assuming far too much risk far to quickly for a person with your discipline. You will get there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4868ceb88a6bd253ef1d6e26028246ad",
"text": "I'm confused why you think you need a $450k house. That seems extremely high in today's market except perhaps in certain major urban locations. If you're going to live in suburbia or a smaller town/city, you should be able to find a nice 3br house for well under $300k. Before you rule out buying a house, I'd spend some time researching the real estate listings in your area, foreclosures, properties owned by bankruptcy court, etc. - you might be surprised to find a great home for as low as $150-200k. Of course if you live in a place where what I'm saying is completely off-base, please disregard my answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4bf0dcb96ce68979ca1b604142bb2d7",
"text": "\"Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of \"\"here is a nice house, live in it\"\". Which do you need more of? If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f143cf90f596f0fb81fb5e359cf2b9a3",
"text": "If your father is still able to make financial decisions and sign contracts, I see a better option. Have your father borrow against his equity to finance the renovation. Example: the house is worth 400 now. He can borrow 100 against that. He spends it on the addition, making the house worth 500, with the same 400 of equity as before. (In some cases, spending 100 might add 150 to the house value, but let's assume here the increase is just what was spent.) When he dies, the mortgage has to be repaid. If he has no other money (that the two of you would otherwise split) then the mortgage has to be repaid by the two of you putting in cash. So you pay your brother 250 (half the new total value of the house) but he gives 50 of that to the bank for the mortgage. You also give 50 of your own money to the bank for the mortgage. Net result: your brother has 200 (the same as if he had inherited half the unimproved house), and you have a 500 house after paying out 300. Your gain is also the same as if the house was unimproved. Now if the house went up 150 by spending 100, or went up 60 by spending 100, you and your brother would also be sharing this profit or loss. If you don't want that to happen, you will need a different agreement. The advantage of the approach I'm suggesting is you just need one appraisal after your father dies. Not accounted for in this is that you lived (without paying rent) in your father's house for some time, and that you worked (without being paid) as a caregiver to your father for that time. Some families might think those two things balanced, others might feel you need to be compensated for caring for him, and others that you need to compensate the others for your benefit of living in the large house. Be sure to discuss this with your brother so that you agree in advance whether a plan is fair or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12b48d3715194753802ef8cc74fc3d4d",
"text": "\"Unless you are investing an insignificant amount of money for the home and renovations, you need title insurance. Without it multiple other parties can claim ownership in this property you are purchasing and investing in. Also you can know if there are any liens against the property which can cost you a significant amount in addition to the costs you are budgeting. For example liens against a property I bought a while back amounted to 26% of the price I paid. In my case the seller (a bank) paid those, while in your case you may need to pay any liens as I suspect the seller has little money. That \"\"bone\"\" in your body that has you worried about this transaction is really good. Pay attention to it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce37deb1b4b12f1c4a2d3fed25722ad9",
"text": "I just wanted to add one factor to the other answers. The cost of maintenance etc. is not a fraction of the cost of financing - it is more likely a fraction of the value of the house, and a function of its age. If you say you need to replace a roof every 25 years, and that costs $10,000 (depends on the size of the house, obviously), then you need to set aside $400 a year for roof repair. Other costs (painting, flooring, kitchen, bathrooms, water heaters, heating, AC, yard upkeep etc) can be roughly estimated in the same way. A rule of thumb is 1% of the value of the house per year to cover all big-ticket maintenance. If you pay 4% mortgage, that would increase the reserve by 25%; but if interest rates rise, the fraction may be smaller (I remember paying over 10% mortgage...). In general, whether keeping a property for long term rental income (with the potential for appreciation - but prices can go up and down) is a good idea will largely depend on your ability to predict future costs and value. If you have a variable mortgage, that will be harder to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "828d65f2a6078dcbc1e404f18aebdec2",
"text": "It may be possible to get more cash than you currently have. For example, If you have $200,000, you could buy a distressed property for $150,000, spend $50,000 on renovations, get it appraised for $300,000 and then cash out refi $240,000 (keeping 20% equity to avoid MIPs) to invest. This would be analogous to flipping a house for yourself. Normally flippers buy a house for cheap, then sell it to someone else for way more than their total outlay in purchase + improvements. The only difference here is there's no 3rd party - you stay in the house and essentially buy it from yourself with the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd3b478a6bdb1e7a8d291a965d3ca2fc",
"text": "Others have already made good points, so I'll just add a few more: You say that if you bought it, your mortgage, insurance, and taxes minus the rental income from the bottom floor would leave you with costs of 1/4 of your current rent. That means you're getting a fantastic deal on the purchase price. I suspect you may be underestimating some of those costs. So, get exact figures on the mortgage, insurance and taxes and do the math. If it is that good, go for it, just make sure to get that home inspection (in case there's major problems and they're trying to get out while the gettin's good) Also, some advice: Be prepared to cover that entire monthly cost for a few months. Units can stand empty for a while. Also, you may want to rent out slowly - a good tenent found after a couple months is much better than a bad tenent found quickly. Also, have some money set aside for maintenence. As a renter, you've never really had to think about that before, but as a homeowner you do. As a landlord, it's even more important - you can not fix something in your own home for a while if you needed to wait, but in a tenent unit, you have to fix it immediately. Finally, taxes: You do get to deduct interest, and so on, but it'll work a little differently than you think. You'll have to split it in half (if the units are the same size) and deduct half the interest as a normal homeowner deduction, the other half as a business expense. Same for PMI, insurance, and property taxes. If you do maintenance that effects both units, like fixing the roof, half will be deductible, the other half not. However, maintenance that only affects the tenant unit is fully deductible. You can claim depreciation, but only for half. So, your starting amount you can depreciate would be (purchase price - land value)/2. Same thing here - half is your home, the other half is a business. Note that some things you'd think of as maintenance costs actually can't be deducted, only depreciated over time. Take that leaky roof, for example. If you replaced it instead of repairing it, you could not deduct your replacement costs. It counts as an improvement, and gets added to your cost-basis, where you depreciate it along with (half!) the house. If your tenant's refrigerator went out, and you replaced it, you couldn't deduct that either. However you can depreciate all of it on another schedule (seperate from home depreciation). If you repaired it instead, you can deduct all of it immediately. Taxes suck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "749960a13c58456820dd69d8e93bd7c4",
"text": "\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ea45300bb23e354de840d21835271d0",
"text": "I agree with MrChrister about first considering how necessary the renovations are (is it a nice-to-have, or a need-to-have?), as well as the importance of consulting a Realtor, if you are selling your home, as they will advise you wisely. For instance, they might advise you to replace the linoleum with a neutral beige ceramic tile, as you would be assured a better resale value on your dollar spent, than if you were to replace the old linoleum with new linoleum (or laminate). There are many types of renovations that simply don't pay off, and others that do provide good return-on-investment (like intelligent kitchen and bathroom updates). I found this ROI grid at lendingmax.ca (which is pretty consistent with what I remember reading in the Toronto Star this spring): Top 10 Renovations ~ Average return on investment Painting and interior decorating = 73% Kitchen renovations = 72% Bathroom renovations = 68% Exterior painting = 65% Flooring upgrades = 62% Window/door replacement = 57% Family room addition = 51% Fireplace addition = 50% Basement renovation = 49% Furnace/heating updating = 48% If you are selling your home, and your Realtor has suggested improvements, they are probably necessary, and not doing them might serve as an impediment to quickly selling your home - so factor in the (potential) costs of carrying your home for additional weeks/months, or worse, overlapping mortage costs, if it takes your home longer to sell, and you end up owning two homes simultaneously for a bit. As far as your question (should you pay cash for renos or take out a loan), one factor to consider if you live in Canada is the Home Renovation Tax Credit, which applies to renos that take place until Feb 1, 2010, and can deduct up to $1,350. So if you have to do a reno and yours qualifies for this tax credit, and you won't have the cash before that deadline, factor in the cost of borrowing vs. the $1,350. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a7975f7b904e476239cf8f0dc1eb4de",
"text": "\"If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis. It all depends on the numbers you plug in. Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k. Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k. You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc. Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k. It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo. In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it. It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years. That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is: if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value. However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have increased in price. But it may not scale. When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses. That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low. Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either market? I don't think so. I think, in general, buying \"\"more house\"\" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable. Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles. The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes. You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was. In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point: let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b23ff5779af65a54ee57515bb92dce8f
|
What should I do with my money?
|
[
{
"docid": "55b1341a3a982569d7c490daba32c0b2",
"text": "\"I don't think blanket answers are very helpful. You are asking the right question when you are young! You have a large number of investment options and Australia has the Superannuation system that you can extract significant tax value from. I've not attempted to grade these with regard to \"\"risk\"\", as different people will rate various things with different levels, depending on their experience and knowledge. Consider the following factors for you:-\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "12b393f48f29a67fb2145c2685cdab24",
"text": "\"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is \"\"too good to not get into\"\" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund.\"",
"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": "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": "5d7f244020437e6a98abac60a57ca848",
"text": "While it’s your personal choice on HOW you save for later its essential that you save. My sister works in a bank and recommended me not to put any money into retirement plans since the tax-advances seem fine but have to paid back when you take the money out of the accounts (in Switzerland, don't know about the united states). Many reasons exist that you suddenly need the money: Buying a house, needing a new car, health issues or just leaving the country forever (and the government trying to make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back). I recommend putting it on a savings account on a different bank that you normally use, without any cards and so on. In short: It can be dangerous to have money locked away – especially if you could easily have it at your hands and you know you're able to manage it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09a5becb8a65cbd0946c1cd11536fce3",
"text": "Forget investing, you need to focus on managing your debt. I would keep the 6k in a checking or savings account because you need that money in case of an emergency. If you save up more than 10k, use the excess to pay down the principal on your debt. Worry about investing when you have a positive net worth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "532e53a0fb994835777206b028413f9e",
"text": "\"You should certainly look into investments. If you don't expect to need the money until retirement, then I'd put it in an IRA so you get the tax advantages. It makes sense to keep some money handy \"\"just in case\"\", but $23k is a very large amount of money for an emergency fund. Of course much depends on your life situation, but I'm hard pressed to think of an unexpected emergency that would come up that would require $23k. If you're seriously planning to go back to school, then you might want to put the money in a non-retirement fund investment. As I write this -- September 2015 -- the stock market is falling, so if you expect to need the money within the next few months, putting it in the stock market may be a mistake. But long term, the stock market has always gone up, so it will almost certainly recover sooner or later. The question is just when. Investing versus paying off debts is a difficult decision. What is the interest rate on the debt? If it's more than you're likely to make on an investment, then you should pay off the debt first. (My broker recently told me that over the last few decades, the stock market has averaged 7% annual growth, so I'm using that as my working number.) If the interest rate is low, some people still prefer to pay off the debt because the interest is certain while the return on an investment is uncertain, and they're unwilling to take the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "429cfce2e24562618c7116e039d669c4",
"text": "\"It's a tricky question w/out more context. If your only options are between stock/funds and letting it sit (i.e. in a saving or CD), I'd have to say option one is the way to go (but that's based on my situation, and you did ask \"\"if you ..\"\"). However, I think the true answer is \"\"it depends.\"\" It depends on your risk tolerance and what are your short-term vs. long-term financial needs. Only after answering those questions you can then seek to strategize and diversify investment accordingly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b99263bf639baea56ca4936226095675",
"text": "\"I think that its ok to keep your \"\"emergency fund\"\" money in cash in your home. By emergency fund, I mean $1,000-2,500, that doesn't get touched. There are risks. You have a risk that the money will be stolen, or be wholly or partially destroyed, or even lost if you stash it somewhere and forget. You're also not going to earn interest. So go for it. But keep your emergency funds in cash -- if you want to buy silver and gold, that's fine...you need to treat them as commodity investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccdb8f9c91451e24752917cd5cf673c7",
"text": "Given your timeframe, risk tolerance, and the fact that you don't need this money, I would suggest a balanced approach. Something like: If you want to have fun investing, you could look into things like lendingclub, or bonds, or stocks, etc. But an allocation like I've outlined above is a pretty good balance of risk and reward over that timeframe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16d806ad1069a3d64d5c7303dd0cba85",
"text": "Most important: Any gains you make from risking this sum of money over the next few years will not be life changing, but if you can't afford to lose it, then losses can be. Rhetorical question: How can you trust what I say you should do with your money? Answer: You can't. I'm happy to hear you're reading about the stock market, so please allow me to encourage you to keep learning. And broaden your target to investing, or even further, to financial planning. You may decide to pay down debt first. You may decide to hold cash since you need it within a couple years. Least important: I suggest a Roth IRA at any online discount brokerage whose fees to open an account plus 1 transaction fee are the lowest to get you into a broad-market index ETF or mutual fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "743152b0e93a232bb7bc64acd1ce7152",
"text": "\"You are at the point that many millions of people are at (and where I used to be) - you have no idea where your money is going. You just spend, spend, spend until there's nothing left, and/or you borrow more to keep going. There are general rules of thumb on how much house and car you can afford, but there is a great deal of personal variation. Housing and utility costs vary greatly from location to location. City-dwellers can use public transit instead of buying and maintaining a car. How much other debt do you have that you need to pay off? Do you have expenses that are not common (e.g. medical bills)? A more personal approach would be to figure out your own budget. The first step is creating a written budget. Figure out how much you can spend in total (i.e. your take-home pay) and the start allocating that money to expenses until you run out. I started by looking backwards. Look back at how much you spent on each category each month. List them in order of priority (e.g. food, health, housing, utilities, transportation, entertainment, everything else). If the money runs out you either stop spending or reduce spending in another category (e.g. can you cook a few extra meals at home instead of going out? Can you take lunch to work instead of a drive-through?) The amount you have left over now indicates how much more house and car you can afford. Once you get to a point where you can budget comfortably then you can start looking at saving for retirement and other long-term goals. This worked for me (and highlighted some areas where I overspent) because I had good categorized records (ironically because I used credit cards incessantly, which I mostly stopped once I created a budget). If you don't have good records, then you have to estimate. How much do you think you spend on food, gas, etc. each month? Then set aside that much and once it's gone don't spend anymore. Now obviously you're not going to stop eating, but the idea is to plan ahead and realize \"\"I have only $20 left to spend on food this month - maybe I shouldn't go to the movies\"\". It takes lots of practice, and you won't get it right very often. If you have enough left over, you can set aside some as a \"\"cushion\"\" in case you do go over your budget, but if you want true financial discipline you should start by reducing other categories first. This is not easy by any means. It will take moths of practice and trial-and-error to get to a point that you're comfortable with the lifestyle that you can afford. So in the end, there are only two variables in your equation - income and outflow. Do you want more house? Either spend less on other things or increase your income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "020e7b03bd2546714cf636928de96efc",
"text": "Most people when asked what would they do with $X dollars say: Pay debt (their own / loved ones) Buy a nice house Buy a nice car Travel 460 million is plenty to do all those things. With the rest I'd start a bond ladder and try to live off the interest",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9788a0894e57a9d222e5ed32e24de07",
"text": "\"Keep saving or investing, but set aside a relatively modest amount for \"\"fun money\"\". That way, you can go have a good time without thinking too much about what you're spending within the limits you spend for yourself. You don't need to spend lavishly to have a good time! Not having the stress on your shoulders of worrying about money is a huge thing. Savor it!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbc902b2e8751c0e08faf3c047029915",
"text": "\"As the others said, you're doing everything right. So, at this it's not a matter of what you should do, it's a matter of what do you want to do? What would make you the happiest? So, what would you like to do most with that extra money? The point is, since you're already doing everything right with the rest of your money, there's really nothing you can do that's wrong with this money. Except using it on something that increases your monthly expenses, like a down payment on a car. In fact, there's no reason you have to do anything \"\"sensible\"\" with this money at all. You could blow it at nightclubs if you wanted to, and that would be perfectly ok. In fact, since you've got everything else covered, why not \"\"invest\"\" it in making some memories? How about vacations to exotic and rugged places, while you're still young enough to enjoy them?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46ef1c349a7e585f5f3bd1e59c73d059",
"text": "Here's how I think about money. There are only 3 categories / contexts (buckets) that my earned money falls into. Savings is my emergency fund. I keep 6 months of total expenses (expenses are anything in the consumption bucket). You can be as detailed as you want with this area but I tend to leave a fudge factor. In other words, if I estimate that I spend approximately $3,000 a month in consumption dollars then I'll save $3,500 times 6 in the bank. This money needs to be liquid. Some people use a HELOC, other people use their ROTH contributions. In any case, you need to put this money some place you can get access to it in case you go from accumulation (income exceed expenses) to decumulation mode (expenses exceed income). This money is distinct from consumption which I will cover in paragraph three. Investments are stocks, bonds, income producing real estate, small businesses, etc. These dollars require a strategy. The strategy can include some form of asset allocation but more importantly a timeline. These are the dollars that are working for you. Each dollar placed here will multiply over time. Once you put a dollar here it shouldn't be taken out unless there is some sort of catastrophe that your savings can't handle or your timeline has been achieved. Notice that rental real estate is included so liquidating stocks to purchase rental real estate is NOT considered removing investment dollars. Just reallocating based on your asset allocation. This bucket includes 401k's, IRAs, all tax-sheltered accounts, non-sheltered brokerage accounts, and rental real estate. In general your primary residence is not included in this bucket. Some people include the equity of their primary residence in the investment column but it can complicate the equation and I prefer to leave it out. The consumption bucket is the most important bucket and the one you spend the most time with. It requires a budget. This includes your $5 magazine and your $200 bottle of wine. Anything in this bucket is gone. You can recover a portion of it by selling it on ebay for $3 (these are earned dollars) but the original $5 is still considered spent. The reason your thought process in this area is distinct from the other two, the decisions made in this area will have the biggest impact on your personal finances. Warren Buffett was famous for skimping on haircuts because they are worth thousands of dollars down the road if they are invested instead. Remember this is a zero-sum game so every $1 not consumed is placed in one of the other buckets. Once your savings bucket is full every dollar not consumed is sent to investments. Remember to include everything that does not fit in the other two buckets. Most people forget their car insurance, life insurance, tax bill at the end of the year, accountant bill, etc. In conclusion, there are three buckets. Savings, which serve as your emergency bucket. This money should not be touched unless you switch from accumulation to decumulation. Investments, which are your dollars that are working for you over time. They require a strategy and a timeline. Consumption, which are your monthly expenses. These dollars keep you alive and contribute to your enjoyment. This is a short explanation of my use of money. It can get as complicated and detailed as you want it to be but as long as you tag your dollars correctly you'll be okay IMHO. HTH.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32e71fb321d39a1fceb84c0481f32a5c",
"text": "Put £50 away as often as possible, and once it's built up to £500, invest in a stockmarket ETF. Repeat until you retire.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cbcc2d72fd579c88e0d29696cf6d16a",
"text": "It depends on how immediately you think you'll need your emergency fund cash: If you anticipate running into problems where you need cash right away (e.g. you live paycheck to paycheck, and your car breaks down a lot), put it into a checking or money market account. If you don't think your emergencies will require immediate access to cash (e.g. unemployment), then put it in a savings account or CD. If there is a lot of money in your accounts that goes unused, and you want a bigger safety net, then consider investing it. Though it's generally a better idea to pay off debts at this point. I think the best idea is to split your emergency fund between your checking and savings. Maybe 20% checking and 80% savings. That way, you have some extra cash on hand when you need it, while most of your money is growing in savings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc68b250e142e0a89cd68aa80106d854",
"text": "If it turns out that you do want to help pay the tax bill (after answering all the questions above), I say cash out those funds. You are apparently very young with a long work life ahead (lucky you). Step aside from the actual money part of it for a moment. What does your Mom want? What do you really want to do about this? Is it from love that you want to help but are afraid it's a bad financial decision? Or is it from a feeling of duty and you deep down don't really want to spend your savings on Mom's tax bill. - If you really do want to help and you have the wherewithall to do so, then do it. Otherwise don't. You can recover financially. - I myself have had my retirement savings go to nearly zero 3 times. The first time I recovered pretty easily. The second time, not so easily. I'm just starting on the recovery path for the 3rd time at age 58 and I highly doubt I ever will recover this time. I didn't cash out on purpose but the stock market was not friendly. - My main point is to figure out truly what you want.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6164674fa287a76ca86bad0e5f4785a7
|
Tax for Basket with Coupon containing two different VAT rates
|
[
{
"docid": "3b36305cf5bd1204e47a99690160c354",
"text": "The vendor needs to do this using apportionment, according to the VAT rules for mixed supplies: If you make mixed supplies and the individual supplies are not liable to VAT at the same rate then you need to work out the tax value of each supply in order to calculate how much tax is due. If the tax value is based on the total price you charge (see paragraph 7.3) you do this by splitting that price between the supplies. This is called an apportionment ... There is no special method of apportionment ... However, your calculations must be fair and you must be able to justify them. It is usually best to use one of the methods shown in section 32. The section 32 referred to really relates to apportioning use between business and non-business purposes, but it implies that splitting up the total price in proportion to the original prices would probably be fair. So in your example the vendor might split the £5 discount equally between the spoon and the carrycot as they had the same gross cost, and pay VAT as if each had cost £7.50 gross. The vendor could also do it in proportion to their net (pre-VAT) prices and thus apportion a bit more of the discount to the carrycot than the spoon, but as this would lead to them paying slightly more tax overall they probably wouldn't choose to. However, none of this is likely to be too relevant to a consumer, since in the UK prices must be presented as the gross (VAT-inclusive) amounts and so the discounts will also apply to those amounts. It will of course affect how much of the purchase price the vendor ends up paying on to the government and thus might indirectly affect what discounts the vendor is willing to offer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "72b1e6985173d4f438917c27830348c5",
"text": "Not doing this would defeat the entire purpose of a VAT. The reason for a VAT rather than a simple sales tax is that it's harder to evade. Having a simple sales tax with the type of rates that VAT taxes typically are is unworkable because evasion is too easy. Imagine I'm a retailer. I buy products from a wholesaler and sell them to consumers. With a sales tax, if I don't charge the customer sales tax, the customer is happy and I don't care (assuming I don't get caught). And if I keep the sales tax but don't report the sale, I make a lot of money. Now, imagine a VAT. If I don't charge the customer the VAT, I lose money since I paid the VAT on the wholesale products. And if I don't report the sale, how do I claim my VAT refund?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95dd36e4d0bd04692f5031191b9c6a52",
"text": "\"Regarding vehicle property tax in Virgina. The big difference is that business vehicles don't get a tax break: Under Virginia law -- the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998 (PPTRA, also known as the \"\"No Car Tax\"\" legislation) -- the State planned to subsidize 100% of the taxes on personal use vehicle assessments below $20,000 by the year 2002. In passing this law, the State effectively pledged state revenue to pay local governments throughout the Commonwealth a subsidy in lieu of personal property taxes that local governments would have otherwise collected directly from taxpayers. At present, the State pays approximately 62% of the bill, and the taxpayer pays the remaining 38%. These rates are subject to change annually. The taxpayer must pay the full amount of taxes on any vehicle assessment that exceeds $20,000. Only personal use vehicles qualify for PPTRA. If that vehicle is worth 20K then a business will pay 4.57% of 20,000, but an individual will pay 4.57% of 7,600. A difference of $566 per year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e681e4b1b318f21ad1c28a92d8859cea",
"text": "There is no clear answer, it might be or not be. Depends a lot on your situation. 1)Yes it is taxable but as Italy has a double taxation agreement with UK, you might not have to pay. You can get a detailed guidance on the HMRC website. 2) Apply here for a certificate of residence 3)You can only claim back if Italy taxes you more than UK would. If it is less than you will have to pay the remaining portion to HMRC. You do this in the self assessment form/tax return/call up HMRC. 4)Tell the truth, explain your whole scenario and don't withheld relevant information assuming you may lower you tax by doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "622d9efc9997fa5f88883a7f7a3621cc",
"text": "ESPP tax treatment is complicated. If you received a discount on the purchase of your stock, that discount is taxable as ordinary income when you sell the stock. Any profit about the market value when the stock was purchased is taxed based upon the holding period of the stock. If you have held the stock less than a year, the profit is taxed at your marginal tax rate (ie taxed as ordinary income). If the stock is held for more than a year, it is taxed at a special capital gains tax rate, which ranges from 0-20% depending on your marginal tax rate (most people pay 15%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27d9e24ac779e2b2ae49ec352be8120e",
"text": "\"I doubt it. In the States you would only owe tax if you sold such an item at a profit. \"\"garage sales\"\" aren't taxable as they are nearly always common household items and sale is more about clearing out one's attic/garage than about profit. Keep in mind, if I pay for a book, and immediately sell it for the same price, there's no tax due, why would tax be due if I sell for a loss?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f9145774a035dbf3b2073b0cdaef967",
"text": "The way I see it, corporation tax is not fundamentally different from VAT. They are both a tax on revenue minus expenses, just what those expenses are is different. I think the main advantage of corporation tax is that it allows capital expenditure to be spread over several years, although as I said this makes it more complicated (and I believe that there are some capital allowances for VAT as well). One advantage of VAT is that sales in one country are taxed in that country before the money can be sent abroad. It seems simple and fair to split the tax burden between jurisdictions according to how many sales were made in each.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "326e509907a0cd7a78e5cf4f2abef8db",
"text": "A) a tax treaty probably covers this for the avoidance of double taxation. Tax treaties can be very cryptic and have little precedence clarifying them http://www.irs.gov/businesses/international/article/0,,id=169552,00.html B) I'm going to say NO since the source of your income is going to be US based. But the UK tax laws might also have specific verbage for resident source income. sorry it is an inconclusive answer, but should be some factors to consider and point you in the right direction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce76c6101a3f1577a11cca8495cebfc4",
"text": "It's quite common for VAT-registered businesses to quote ex-VAT prices for supply to other businesses. However you're right that when you make an order you will be invoiced and ultimately have to pay the VAT-inclusive price, assuming your supplier is VAT registered. If you're not clear on this then you should check since it obviously makes quite a difference. Since your business is not VAT-registered you cannot charge VAT to your customers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52cc3372c358d8a4abf865160106ab9b",
"text": "Typically tax treaties will cover double taxation (taxes paid in one jurisdiction are deducted in the other jurisdiction so there is no double tax). You'll need an accountant and attorney with experience in international business setups to confirm and determine which jurisdiction gets first priority of tax payment. In short, this is the wrong place to get a good answer. Talk to (and pay for) professionals to get you properly set up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76b55af2775772c8110da4c1f45acab8",
"text": "Yeah, the VAT adds more fairness between who gets the taxes, but is only offset by it being more complicated and needing more bureaucracy. I think it's an interesting idea. If I were a policy analyst I'd like to see what costs are vs. benefit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3560962730b36bd73e5f0bc79750065f",
"text": "With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75241ae021a30004005c57a56cb360ab",
"text": "If the VAT is offset by not having to pay for employees health insurance, then I wonder what net effect it would have on goods? Also, if the employees are no longer paying for their share of the employer funded health insurance, then that would, effectively, be more money in the employees pockets. You're right though, it all comes down to what the numbers look like.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4370d67184d731bc7e118aca47f90f9",
"text": "I think it should be free. Why? I had a coupon for 35, I bought something for 35.01 including taxes and total to pay was 0.01, rounded to 0.00. I think it's almost the same scenario.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c9b48ed7f140ddf25940da79b0bba86",
"text": "The VAT number should be equivalent from the point of view of your client. The fact that you are a sole trader and not a limited liability doesn't matter when it comes down to pay VAT. They should pay the VAT to you and you will pay it to the government. I'll guess that their issue is with tax breaks, it is a bit more tricky to receive a tax break on paid taxes if you buy something abroad (at least it is here in Finland). If they won't pay you because of that, you could open a LTD or contract the services of a 'management company' which will do the job of invoicing, receiving the money and passing it back to you, for a fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21d4e1e1342a71f70549aee9c0eb3e5b",
"text": "IANAL, I have not been VAT registered myself but this is what I have picked up from various sources. You might want to confirm things with your solicitor or accountant. As I understand it there is a critical difference between supplying zero-rated goods/services and supplying exempt goods/services. If the goods/services are zero-rated then the normal VAT rules apply, you charge VAT on your outputs (at a rate of 0%) and can claim back VAT on your inputs (at whatever rate it was charged at, depending on the type of goods.. If the goods/services are exempt you don't charge and VAT on your outputs and can't claim back any VAT on your inputs. (Things get complicated if you have a mixture of exempt and non-exempt outputs) According to http://oko.uk/blog/adsense-vat-explained adsense income is a buisness to buisness transaction with a company in another EU country and so from a supplier point of view (you are the supplier, google is the customer) it counts as a zero-rated transaction.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dfab1dff1a17e46782a9950d224a453f
|
Why is routing number called ABA/ABN number?
|
[
{
"docid": "db71fa8d0f72907d3345cfdd48549a9b",
"text": "The ABA number you speak of is more accurately called the Routing Transit Number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number A routing transit number (RTN) is a nine digit bank code, used in the United States, which appears on the bottom of negotiable instruments such as checks identifying the financial institution on which it was drawn. This code was designed to facilitate the sorting, bundling, and shipment of paper checks back to the drawer's (check writer's) account. The RTN is also used by Federal Reserve Banks to process Fedwire funds transfers, and by the Automated Clearing House to process direct deposits, bill payments, and other such automated transfers. The RTN number is derived from the bank's transit number originated by the American Bankers Association, which designed it in 1910.[1] I am going to assume that the euphemistic ABA Number has been shortened by whoever told you about it and called it the ABN. Perhaps American Bank Number. Either way, the technical term is RTN. Perhaps a comment or editor can straighten me out about the ABN. There is an international number known as the SWIFT number that serves the same purpose worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9362 ISO 9362 (also known as SWIFT-BIC, BIC code, SWIFT ID or SWIFT code) defines a standard format of Business Identifier Codes approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It is a unique identification code for both financial and non-financial institutions.[1] The acronym SWIFT stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. When assigned to a non-financial institution, the code may also be known as a Business Entity Identifier or BEI. These codes are used when transferring money between banks, particularly for international wire transfers, and also for the exchange of other messages between banks. The codes can sometimes be found on account statements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3eedfd995588585b7ebb1205710f32f",
"text": "With number of Banks increasing every country at some point in time adopted an Identification code. In US these are called ABA number because they are allocated by American Bankers Association, in UK Sort Codes ... like wise for other countries. See list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_code In some countries the numbers are given by Central Bank. To enable internationl payments, the SWIFT body apart from message formats, allocated a SWIFT BIC [Bank identification Code] so that Banks can be globally identified. Currently IBAN being adopted in Europe & Australia to identify an Account [at a Bank] Uniquely across globe. In essence these number help uniquely identify a Location/Bank/Branch. The clearing house route the payments or collection instruments to the correct Bank on the basis of this number.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ee8811b2d81aab7d77767fffc1331f20",
"text": "Emergency funds, by the name it implies that they should be available on hand at a very short notice if needed. Conservation of principal (not withstanding inflation, but rather in absolute terms) is also a very important criteria of any kind of account that you will use to save the emergency fund. I would suggest the following breakup. The number in brackets signifies the amount of per month expenses that you can keep in that account. = total 6 months living expenses",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18665dc5fa080e4469ed3808a1f01234",
"text": "Most transactions that the bank performs for you are electronic ACH transactions, so the costs to them are minimal in the long run. Most banks do it now to keep up with the competition. Almost every bank does it now, so they have to do it to attract new business and keep existing customers. Also, the more you rely on the bank and use them to pay bills, the more they learn about you over time and can use that data in overall marketing plans. It's easier for them to record it into their system if it is all electronic to begin with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e9eec0415e239f7e4adcd09bd0376bc",
"text": "It's to legally allow you to buy/ sell securities on behalf of others and to give advice. Different tests allow different things. 66 is for the basics: stocks and bonds etc. I believe 31 is for insurance or something. I'm not too sure the specifics I'm probably wrong about which test is which though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4c0bb00fb1fc446618ca073a74febfd",
"text": "Basically speaking, Japanese bank accounts are identified by three numbers: The four digit Bank number. For example 0005 is Mitsubishi Tokyo UFJ Bank The three digit Branch number. For example 001 = Main branch for Mitsubishi. The account number. This is your account number. Your ATM Cash Card and passbook will have these numbers on it in the format XXXX-YYYY-ZZZZZZZZ. When you use an ATM to send money to someone else (like your landlord) you but in these three numbers or use the search feature instead for the first two. This works the same whether you are talking about Mitsubishi, Mizuho, etc. The only thing to note is that while real banks use locations for the branch number (i.e. Ueno branch, Marunouchi branch, etc.), online only banks like Sony Bank (MoneyKit), Rakuten Bank, SBi, etc. use fake locations like colors, etc. This doesn't matter much though. Japan Post bank is technically not a bank and uses a totally different numbering system, though recently they have come up with a strange formula to convert your JP Bank account number into a normal bank account number so you can send payments to it as shown above). All of this is basically for domestic transfers only, though. If you want to transfer money internationally, there are two basic ways: The official way. Go to your bank overseas, and give them the SWIFT code and account code for your bank (likely the branch code will be necessary as well). The problem here is that they will likely charge a high fee for sending the money, and your bank in Japan may also charge a high fee for receiving it! (In addition to any currency conversion fees). A second problem is that only the very major banks even have SWIFT codes. Use a money transfer service that can handle both Japan and your other country. For example, you can use 2 Paypal accounts (Only in the direction of From Japan To overseas, though!), or you can use something like MoneyBookers Either way IBAN is a European standard and isn't used in Japan. If you just want to spend some money in Japan, the most convenient way is probably a foreign visa debit card. Or, you can use a foreign ATM card in Japan to withdraw cash and then deposit it into your Japanese account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5e5e9132730459384f7e230754c00f4",
"text": "\"this is purely psychological. most people are absolutely terrible at keeping track of their finances. to the point where they will use multiple separate accounts for different types of spending or savings goals. when the average person tells the banker they want an account for the money they are saving, they get handed a \"\"savings account\"\" and don't bother to question how it is different from a checking account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61b85cead5d73582e622371bb6e9a673",
"text": "It's safe. You give people those numbers every time you write a check. If a check is forged, and doesn't have your signature on it, the bank has to return the money to you; they get it back from the other bank, who takes whatever action it deems necessary against the forger. They've been doing this for a few hundred years, remember.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a603e76dd7cf5e499482b89caca47328",
"text": "First, they don't have an obligation to provide a service for a non-customer. In theory, the could even refuse this service to account holders if that was their business model, although in practice that would almost surely be too large of a turn-off to be commercially feasible. Non-account holders aren't paying fees or providing capital to the bank, so the bank really has no incentive or obligation to tie up tellers serving them. Maybe as importantly, they have a legitimate business reason in this case as stated. The fact that the bill passed whatever test the teller did does not, of course, ensure that the bill is real. They may (or may not) subject it to additional tests later that might be more conclusive. Making you have an account helps ensure that, in the event they do test it and it fails, that (a) they know who you are in case the Secret Service wants to find you, and (b) they can recover their losses by debiting your account by the $100. This isn't foolproof since any number of bad things could still happen (identity theft, closing account before they do additional tests, bill passing later tests, etc.), but it does give them some measure of protection.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "250776fdc7608cf2ad194f982553b759",
"text": "\"In Europe in most of the countries there is also a thing called ACH. In UK there is a thing called BACS and in other countires there are other things. Essentially every country has what is called a \"\"Low value Net Settlement System\"\" that is used to transfer funds between accounts of different banks. In US there is rounting number, in UK there is a Sort Code, in Indonesia there is a sort code. Essentially a Bank Identifier that is issued by the Governing body within respective countires. Certian identifiers like SWIFT BIC [Bank Identification Code] are Unique across world.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b80c35e9f45bc2e2b566652dd85fa4dd",
"text": "Typically 'current' means the account from which you do your day-to-day banking (also called 'checking') and 'savings' is an interest earning account, from which you might occasionally take money. However...you can actually attach these labels (for ATM purposes) to any account you want. They don't have to be your actual checking or savings accounts. I have 'current' attached to my personal account and 'savings' on the account I hold jointly with my wife. They are just labels you attach to different accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91d1802b16c0cb4b7467d2137e0e4800",
"text": "Probably because large chains can absorb the loss from fraud better than small stores do. Thus, small stores want to ensure that the person holding the card is the same as the name on the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4547ba8882ca5083e07856480f94e0ec",
"text": "For the clearing house, only the routing number and the check amount [which gets encoded before its presented to clearing] is important. The check numbers were put in as a fraud prevention mechanism to ensure that one check was only presented once and that it was issued to a particular account. Typically issued in sequence. So as your account is new, the bank may have a mechanism to verify the checks [maybe based on amount and other info]. If your volume of check issuing increases, they may start putting in a check number to better track.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd0bb20077a932bc52f28e8f88679e29",
"text": "\"I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. I think you're asking this: \"\"A US bank receives a wire transfer from a Chinese bank. How does the US bank ensure there's any money in fact arriving before crediting the destination account?\"\" Well, the way wire transfers work is that the US bank would debit the senders' account with that US bank. So the US bank in fact transfers the money between two internal accounts: debit to the Chinese bank's account with that US bank and credit the destination customer account. If the Chinese bank doesn't have an account with the destination US bank - a third party intermediary is used that both banks have accounts with. Such third party will charge an additional fee (hence sometimes the wire transfer fees are slightly higher than you initially know when sending the money, the third party would debit from the transfer amount). \"\"Regular\"\" IBAN/ACH transfers work through regulatory channels that ensure integrity and essentially use a regulatory bank as that third party. But because they're done in batches and not on-line, they're much cheaper, and the accounting is for the whole batch and not each transfer separately. But batch processing means it will take a day or two of processing, while wire transfer takes hours at most.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d6484df1dd699dba84e32c627210e21",
"text": "Another explanation is that they keep your money three days to make money with it, because they can. The other reasons might have been valid 100 years ago, and no bank would voluntarily cut that down until forced by law. Example: In Europe, bank to bank transfers used to take three days, until a law forced them to give next day, and suddenly it was possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ec98223bf7d147a121185b9f03fae31",
"text": "\"There's something wrong with your story. The IBAN contiains two check digits, and the method used to compute them guarantees that any single digit error will be caught. So it's impossible that \"\"HSBC screwed up the last digit of my IBAN\"\" because if that were the case, the resulting IBAN would not be valid and be rejected by the computer when it was entered at your bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fa31bc1e67933188329a7f3d31e7b99",
"text": "Most bank accounts offer automatic bill pay as well. They don't rely on support from the bill you're paying, I think they basically just mail a check with your account number on it",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4dfb3b30932621589f5e504d3ac71821
|
First concrete steps for retirement planning when one partner is resistant
|
[
{
"docid": "2ac0c962a8e0fc8964131ea3692c84ea",
"text": "\"I would suggest you do three things: If you do all three of these, the time will come when \"\"2 months off to go to Italy this winter and ride bikes through wine country\"\" is something you both want to do, can afford to do, and have arranged your lives to make it feasible. Or whatever wow-cool thing you might dream of. Buying a vacation property. Renovating an old house. The time may also come when you can take a chance on no income for 6 months to start a business that will give you more flexibility about when and where you work. Or when you can switch from working for a pay cheque to volunteering somewhere all day every day. You (as a couple) will have the freedom to make those kinds of decisions if you have that safety net of long term savings, as long as you also have a strong and happy relationship because you didn't spend 40 years arguing about money and whether or not you can afford things.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c19bb8874dcaba8f6d3b4abbcf1dfde0",
"text": "You can take a queue from any sales opportunity and position it in ways that will still appeal to someone who intends to continue working perpetually. Here are some of the points I would make: 401k matching funds are free money that you will have access to in ~20 years whether you retire or not. Long-term savings that grow in the stock market turn into residual income that will add to your standard of living whether you retire or not. There are tax advantages to deferring income if you are in a high tax bracket now. You will have flexibility to withdraw that money in future years where you might have lower earnings. (For example, in a future year, you could take a sabbatical trip to Europe for a few months without pay and draw on your savings during that time that you are not making money.) Even if you don't invest in a 401k, you and max out HSA accounts if you are eligible, and position that as money for medical expenses. If you never have medical reasons to spend that money, you can still withdraw at retirement age like a 401k or IRA. (Though it gets taxed as income if not used for qualified medical purposes at retirement time.) With an unwilling partner, it's difficult to make a lot of progress, but if you have matching funds from your employer, do make sure that you are getting at least those for yourself. Ultimately if he doesn't want to save for himself, you should for yourself. There are no guarantees in life. If he dies or leaves, you must be prepared to take care of your own needs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90846e0811d0c4d2f377573d4dbf2330",
"text": "To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a87e909ce967530a0f83baa6241eedd0",
"text": "\"I can understand your nervousness being 40 and no retirement savings. Its understandable especially given your parents. Before going further, I would really recommend the books and seminars on Love and Respect. The subject matter is Christian based, but it based upon a lot of secular research from the University of Washington and some other colleges. It sounds like to me, this is more of a relationship issue than a money issue. For the first step I would focus on the positive. The biggest benefit you have is: Your husband is willing to work! Was he lazy, there would be a whole different set of issues. You should thank him for this. More positives are that you don't have any credit card debt, you only have one car payment (not two), and that you are paying additional payments on each. I'd prefer that you had no car payment. But your situation is not horrible. So how do you improve your situation? In my opinion getting your husband on board would be the first priority. Ask him if he would like to get the car paid off as fast as possible, or, building an emergency fund? Pick one of those to focus on, and do it together. Having an emergency fund of 3 to 6 months of expense is a necessary precursor to investing, anyway so you from the limited info in your post you are not ready to pour money into your 401K. Have you ever asked what his vision is for his family financially? Something like: \"\"Honey you care for us so wonderfully, what is your vision for me and our children? Where do you see us in 5, 10 and 20 years?\"\" I cannot stress enough how this is a relationship issue, not a math issue. While the problems manifests themselves in your balance sheet they are only a symptom. Attempting to cure the symptom will likely result in resentment for both of you. There is only one financial author that focuses on relationships and their effect on finances: Dave Ramsey. Pick up a copy of The Total Money Makeover, do something nice for him, and then ask him to read it. If he does, do something else nice for him and then ask him what he thinks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33314a31c8d305dd0a2bad1f94b05411",
"text": "I'd try to (gently) point out to your husband that what he thinks he wants to do now and what he might want to do in 20 or 30 years are not necessarily the same thing. When I was 40 I was thinking that I would work until I died. Now I'm 58 and have health problems and I'm counting down the days until I can retire. Even if your husband is absolutely certain that he will not change his mind about retiring in the next 20+ years, maybe something will happen that puts things beyond his control. Like medical problems, or simply getting too old to be able to work. Is he sure that he will be able to continue to put in 40 hour weeks when he's 80? 90? 100? Just because you put money away for retirement doesn't mean that you are required to retire. If you put money away, and when the time comes you don't want to retire, great! Now you can collect the profits on your investments in addition to collecting your salary and live very well. Or have a nice nest egg to leave to your children. Putting money away for retirement gives you options. Retirement doesn't necessarily mean sitting around the house doing nothing until you waste away and die of boredom. My parents were busier after they retired then when they were working. They spent a lot of time on charity work, visiting people in the hospital, working with their church, that sort of thing. Some people start businesses. As they have retirement income coming in, they don't have to worry about the business earning enough to provide a living, so they can do something they want to do because they think it's fun or contributes to society or whatever. Etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2e71b41f10542896093e9541bbff4e6",
"text": "Bringing your spouse on board a financial plan is key to success. The biggest part is to have a shared dream. Having retirement saving doesn't mean that you can't work. It does mean that you both will have some level of security as you age. Does your husband really want you to be impoverished when he dies? I doubt it, he probably just hasn't given it much thought. A strong nest-egg can help you after his is gone even if you are still working. My wife and I follow Dave Ramsey's baby steps. It has worked like a champ for us and can help you as well. You can look up his plan, most of the materials are free. A few highlights: So in short, don't worry about retirement until you two are out of debt. Once you two are out of debt then save for your retirement, kids college and pay off your home early. Building a shared dream with your husband is the best way to get him onboard. Talk about helping the kids, freedom to vacation, your parents struggle, whatever gets him to see the importance of having some savings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "13600689d517cc3f682b64709187c5e4",
"text": "Whatever you choose for a remedy (my first impulse is to suggest bankruptcy) you should protect your retirement plans. These are immune from most collection actions, the exception being govt debts (e.g. taxes) and student loans. The sad part is that the student loans won't go away except by paying them off. Miss one payment and it will hound you for 10 years. Bankruptcy will stop you from getting a home loan for only two years. Unless you have the discipline to live like a monk for a decade it sounds like you're headed for a train wreck. The kids will have to cut back to junior college or some other method of reducing costs and as hard as it sounds, don't cosign for any more student loans. Kids are more resilient than you think and they'll probably come up with their own solutions like scholarships, work study and off campus jobs. I hate to keep beating the bankruptcy horse but at least that way you could still keep your house and car. Otherwise you risk losing either or both from missed payments. I actually hope that you can avoid bankruptcy so I suggest first you talk to a financial adviser or bankruptcy attorney to see if this is in fact right for you. But if it's just the shame of the scarlet letter B then consider that pride doesn't keep a roof over your head or food in your belly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cab8a85705f3c03341cab69c7efa553e",
"text": "If you look at history, it shows that the more people predict corrections the less was the chance they came. That doesn't prove it stays so, though. 2017 is not any different than other years in the future: Independent of this, with less than ten years remaining until you need to draw from your money, it is a good idea to move away from high risk (and high gain); you will not have enough time to recover if it goes awry. There are different approaches, but you should slowly and continuously migrate your capital to less risky investments. Pick some good days and move 10% or 20% each time to low-risk, so that towards the end of the remaining time 90 or 100% are low or zero risk investments. Many investment banks and retirement funds offer dedicated funds for that, they are called 'Retirement 2020' or 'Retirement 2030'; they do exactly this 'slow and continuous moving over' for you; just pick the right one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d9d1d5cc25027082ca2f016cc8a94ae",
"text": "Others have made excellent suggestions; one thing I would add - and this cannot be understated - is to assess your risk tolerance. We tend to think of investing as a purely rational and financial decision, yet myself and so many others, when times get tough, make emotional decisions. Doing a risk tolerance test (as honestly as possible) will help you recognize what you can and can't handle. On top of that, consider how well you face adversity or celebrations in other areas of life; I've found many similarities in the ways that we handle a gain in our investments to the way we celebrate a raise (same thing with adversity). Once you know this, you can begin the process of elimination on funds. [Added: the point above this, does not consume a lot of time and could end up saving you a great deal of money and emotional agony, so it's well-worth it.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b287fe3e5c18c67590e241a102689ff",
"text": "\"1 - in most cases, the difference between filing joint or married filing single is close to zero. When there is a difference you're better off filing joint. 2 - The way the W4 works is based on how many allowances you claim. Unfortunately, even in the day of computers, it does not allow for a simple \"\"well my deduction are $xxx, don't tax that money.\"\" Each allowance is equal to one exemption, same as you get for being you, same as the wife gets, same as each kid. 3 people X $3800 = $11,400 you are telling the employer to take off the top before calculating your tax. She does this by using Circular E and is able to calculate your tax as you request. If one is in the 15% bracket, one more exemption changes the tax withheld by $570. So if you were going to owe $400 in April, one few exemption will have you overpay $170. i.e. in this 15% bracket, each exemption changes annual withholding by that $570. For most people, running the W4 numbers will get them very close, and only if they are getting back or owing over $500, will they even think of adjusting. 3 - My recently published Last Minute Tax Moves offers a number of interesting ideas to address this. The concept of grouping deductions in odd years is worth noting. 4 - I'm not sure what this means, 2 accounts each worth $5000 should grow at the same rate if invested the same. The time it makes sense to load one person's account first is if they have better matching. You say you are not sure what percent your wife's company matches. You need to change this. For both of your retirement plans you need to know every detail, exact way to maximize matching, expense ratios for the investments you choose, any other fees, etc. Knowledge is power, and all that. In What is an appropriate level of 401k fees or expenses in a typical plan? I go on to preach about how fees can wipe out any tax benefit over time. For any new investor, my first warning is always to understand what you are getting into. If you can't explain it to a friend, you shouldn't be in it. Edit - you first need to understand what choices are within the accounts. The 4% and 6% are in hindsight, right? These are not fixed returns. You should look at the choices and more heavily fund the account with the better selection. Deposit to her account at least to grab the match. As far as the longer term goals, see how the house purchase goes. Life has a way of sending you two kids and forcing you to tighten the budget. You may have other ideas in three years. (I have no P2P lending experience, by the way.) Last - many advise that separate finances are a bad path for a couple. It depends. Jane and I have separate check books, and every paycheck just keep enough to write small checks without worry, most of the money goes to the house account. Whatever works for you is what you should do. We've been happily married for most of the 17 years we've been married.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f32f7e7afc39af60c5c839369e3106a",
"text": "If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts. With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56468d9a818c8e7457e3f054891a5673",
"text": "I vote for Plan B: PLAN B: Put into 401 K whatever I have in April (will be less than max) and just pay the extra tax. This is path of least resistance and easy but expensive. This plan is the simplest and has the least moving parts. It will be over in April, is easily understood, and does not add extra risk to your life. That being said, the real plan is for next year: save for taxes along the way instead of getting hit with a big bang.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69e661b4e1154b9542f9d63bc5d62bbb",
"text": "So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "419c9242f195bf26a718bf4e307dc73d",
"text": "You are thinking about this very well. With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract. What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance? If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person. (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one. The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own. If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage. Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5841080e5f9aba6ff7e24e94ad1e718b",
"text": "\"This sounds like an accounting nightmare to be 100% precise. With each payment you're going to have to track: If you can account for those, then the fair thing to do is for one person to stop paying after they have paid the amount of principal they had at the beginning of the process, or possibly after they have paid an amount equivalent to the total principal and accrued interest they would have paid if they paid their loans individually. The problem is, one of you is likely going to pay more interest than you would have under the individual plan. In the example you gave, if your brother pays off any of your loans, he is going to be paying more in interest than if he paid on his 5% loans. If you pay the highest rate loans first, whoever has the lower total balance is going to pay more interest since they'll be paying on the higher rates until they've paid their \"\"fair share\"\". I don't see a clean way for you to divvy up the interest savings appropriately unless you trueup at the very end of the process. Math aside, these types of agreements can be dangerous to relationships. What if one of you decides that they don't want to participate anymore? What if one of you gets all of their loans paid off much earlier - they get the joy of being debt free while the other still has all of the debt left? What if they then don't feel obligates to pay the other's remaining debt? Are you both equally committed to cutting lifestyle in order to attack these debts? In my opinion, the complexity and risk to the relationship don't justify the interest savings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95256edb22555049c2e5d130e88e5287",
"text": "\"Get everything in writing. That includes ownership %, money in, money out, who is allowed to use the place, how much they need to pay the other partners, who pays for repairs, whether to provide 'friends and family' discounts, who is allowed to sell, what happens if someone dies, how is the mortgage set up, what to do if one of you becomes delinquent, etc. etc. etc. Money and friends don't mix. And that's mostly because people have different ideas in their head about what 'fair' means. Anything you don't have in writing, if it comes up in a disagreement, could cause a friendship-ending fight. Even if you are able to agree on every term and condition under the sun, there's still a problem - what if 5 years from now, someone decides that a certain clause isn't fair? Imagine one of you needs to move into the condo because your primary residence was pulled out from under you. They crash at the condo because they have no where else to go. You try to demand payment, but they lost their job. The agreement might say \"\"you must pay the partnership if you use the condo personally, at the standard monthly rate * # of days\"\". But what is the penalty clause - is everything under penalty of eviction, and forced sale of the condo and distribution of profits? Following through on such a penalty means the friendship would be over. You would feel guilty about doing it, and also about not doing it [at the same time, your other partner loses their job, and can't make 1/3rd of the mortgage payments anymore! They need the rent or the bank will foreclose on their house!] etc etc etc Even things like maintenance - are the 3 of you going to do it yourselves? Labour distributed how? Will anyone get a management fee? What about a referral fee for a new renter? Once you've thought of all possible circumstances and rules, and drafted it in writing, go talk to a lawyer, and maybe an accountant. There will be many things you won't have considered yet, and paying a few grand today will save you money and friends in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "401c061194dac9da8592747cd33c6a11",
"text": "With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69dd9dbb23a5fbb80ce41d7c0fa951cb",
"text": "\"Making these difficult portfolio decisions for you is the point of Target-Date Retirement Funds. You pick a date at which you're going to start needing to withdraw the money, and the company managing the fund slowly turns down the aggressiveness of the fund as the target date approaches. Typically you would pick the target date to be around, say, your 65th birthday. Many mutual fund companies offer a variety of funds to suit your needs. Your desire to never \"\"have to recover\"\" indicates that you have not yet done quite enough reading on the subject of investing. (Or possibly that your sources have been misleading you.) A basic understanding of investing includes the knowledge that markets go up and down, and that no portfolio will always go up. Some \"\"recovery\"\" will always be necessary; having a less aggressive portfolio will never shield you completely from losing money, it just makes loss less likely. The important thing is to only invest money that you can afford to lose in the short-term (with the understanding that you'll make it back in the long term). Money that you'll need in the short-term should be kept in the absolute safest investment vehicles, such as a savings account, a money market account, short-term certificates of deposit, or short-term US government bonds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82c7493b748407a298bceb7eb6c7650f",
"text": "\"The thing about the glide path is that the closer you're to the retirement age, the less risk you should be taking with your investments. All investments carry risk, but if you invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 20 and lose all your retirement money - it will not have the same effect on your retirement as if you'd invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 65 and then lose all your retirement money. Static allocation throughout your life without changing the risk factor, will lead you to a very conservative investment path, which would mean you're not likely to lose your investments, but you're not likely to gain much either. The point of the glide path is to allow you taking more risks early with more chances of higher gains, but to limit your risks down the road, also limiting your potential gains. That is why it is always suggested to start your retirement funds early in your life, to make sure you have enough time to invest in potentially high return stocks (with high risk), but when you get close to your retirement age, it is advised to do exactly the opposite. The date-targeted funds do that for you, but you can do it on your own as well. As to the academic research - you don't need to go that far. Just look at the graphs to see that over long period investments in stocks give much better return than \"\"conservative\"\" bonds and treasuries (especially when averaging the investments, as it usually is with the retirement funds), but over a given short period, investments in stocks are much more likely to significantly lose in value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d80f72238439599b06de7da0a422228",
"text": "While the 55 exception noted by Joe and JB makes this less of a worry, it's worth noting that to retire early most people would need additional investments beyond a maxed out 401(k). As most people make more money later in life it is generally worth putting what you can in a 401(k) now and later when your savings would max out a 401(k) then you can start adding money to accounts that are not tax-advantaged. These additional funds can be used during the bridge period. Run the numbers yourself as these assumptions won't be true for all individuals, but this may be the piece you are missing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2154894e784fa76977d182c90058d00e",
"text": "Well this is not the best situation. Sorry to your friend. First off ROTHs are out, you need earned income. Secondly, I don't think the focus should be on retirement planning until there is again an earned income. Thirdly, this person is just in a bad spot. Lets assume that you can find some really good mutual funds, that consistently return 10% per year. At best this person can only pull out 10K per year without touching principle. At that income level, taxes are not much of a concern; not as much as surviving. If this person knows anything about investing, they know funds don't work like this. They could be down 5%, down 5%, up ~40% in three years to give an average of 10% return. Which of course further complicates matters. This person (IMO) should seek to start a different career. One that can cater to any long term issues this person has with pain/disability. The money could be used toward training/education in order to get money flowing again. That is not to say the full amount should be used for a BA in Russian Folk Literature, but some minimum training to get a career that starts earning real money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
caba2c893985ebca52094364692fd2f1
|
A guy scammed me, but he gave me a bank account number & routing number. Can I use that to take out what he owes me?
|
[
{
"docid": "b7d9a5849f2f445daea08fec938a24c5",
"text": "\"You're potentially in very deep water here. You don't know who this person is that you're dealing with. Before you'd even met him, he just gave you his banking info, seemingly without a second thought. You have no idea what the sources of his money are, so what happens if the money is stolen or otherwise illegal? If it is determined that you used any of that money, you'll be on the hook to return it, at the very least. Who knows what the legal ramifications are either? So it sounds like you began spending his money before you had any kind of written agreement in place? Doesn't that seem odd to you to have someone just so trusting as to not even ask for that? Was the source of the email about the $2500 from PayPal, or from him or his advisor? PayPal always sends you a notice directly when funds are received into your account, and even if they were going to put a temporary hold on them for whatever reason (sometimes they do that), it would still show up in your account. I would HIGHLY (can I be more emphatic?) advise you not to go anywhere NEAR his bank account until or unless you can absolutely verify who he is, where his money comes from, and what the situation is. If you start dipping into his account, whether you think you're somehow entitled to the money or not, he could cry foul and have you arrested for theft. This is a very odd situation, and for someone who says he's normally cautious and skeptical, you sure let your guard down here when you started spending his money without making any serious effort to confirm his bona fides. Just because he passes himself off as smart and the \"\"doctor type\"\" doesn't mean squat. The very best scammers can do that (ever see the movie \"\"Catch Me If You Can\"\", based on a true story?), so you have no basis for knowing he's anything at all. I am thoroughly confused as to why you'd just willfully start using his money without knowing anything about him. That's deeply disconcerting, because you've opened yourself up to a world of potential criminal and civil liability if this situation goes south. If this guy was giving you money as an investment in your business and you instead used some of that money for your own personal expenses then you could land in very serious trouble for co-mingling of funds. Even if he told you it was okay, it doesn't sound like there's anything in writing, so he could just as easily deny giving you permission to use the money that way and have you charged with embezzlement. You need to step back, take a deep breath, stop using his money, and contact a lawyer for advice. Every attorney will give you a free consultation, and you need to protect yourself here. Be careful, my friend. If this makes you suspicious then you need to listen to that voice in your head and find a way to get out of this situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ba706c8c818d2b2b72005061275a4ff",
"text": "\"OK, reading between the lines here it looks like the services offered by your company are of an \"\"adult\"\" (possibly illegal?) nature and that this individual has actually paid you in full for the services rendered up to this point. The wrinkle here is that you say that you've been offered large cash \"\"gifts\"\" in return for unspecified future favours, but that your client hasn't provided a real Paypal account to do so. When you pressed him on it, he sent a fake email and invented a \"\"financial adviser\"\" to fob you off, then hasn't contacted you since. It's pretty clear that he hasn't got any intention of making these payments to you. What you're now proposing to do is to use his known banking details to collect money to cover those verbal promises. In pretty much every part of the world, that's a crime. Without a written agreement to use that payment method for those promises, he could easily call the police and have you arrested for theft of funds. The further wrinkle is that his actions (claiming to have made payment via paypal, forged email headers, etc) strongly suggest that this individual is involved in cyber-crime and may well have used a fake bank account to pay for your initial services. The bottom line here is that you need real legal advice, from an actual lawyer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77fda8f5bd8dd1eda7d0df6eb4da9478",
"text": "What legal way can I take what I am owed from this guy? The legal ways are for this guy to transfer you the money or give you instructions that will allow you to get the money. Alternatively you would need to file a civil suite to recover the funds. What illegal way do people use this info if they had it? I don't want to get in trouble, but I'm just curious because you always hear how easy it is. There are quite a few illegal ways. I don't think this is the right forum to discuss this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db3869d3bbe9694441d0f24d4c98a15b",
"text": "\"As long as there is nothing more to this story you aren't sharing, you can expect those bills you paid to come back (you will have to pay them again later). You can be pretty certain that the name he gave you was fake, and that the bank account you paid your bills with was not his. I would not try to do anything at all with the information he gave you because first it is not his, and second your name is already tied to this bank account via your utility bills. In other words that would be illegal and you are already on the list of suspects. I would say that if you don't call the police they probably won't call you. The police often times do not even waste their time when somebody's light bill was paid with fraudulent financial information or whatever. I have actually seen similar situations play out a number of times and the police have never gotten involved. Disclaimer: I probably don't live where you live, and I'm not an attorney. But I do know what I am talking about so here's my advice (I know you didn't ask for advice but you probably might benefit from it). Let that money go, sometimes people get you. Take it as a lesson and move on. If you do end up having to have contact with the police and you don't already know, they will lie to you and try to trick you into acting in a way that is not in your self interest. But then you kind of look guilty if you won't even talk to them, and in this case you did not do anything illegal. So if I was you I would probably just think of where I might be incriminating myself by telling the truth, if there were any parts of my story that would raise any flags, and think of how I would smooth those out ahead of time. Also for your personal information you do not need to have a sophisticated understanding of computers to do anything you described, if you are familiar with operating a web browser you can do all types of stuff with Paypal. Most people that give off the vibe \"\"criminal\"\" are not going to be able to make any money conning people and would probably have given it up before they got to you. The information you have is not like the most valuable stuff ever but somebody that knew what they were doing could use it to take money out of your account, and if they had that and then could get a few other pieces they could really mess up your life. So that's part of why they say to be careful, any one piece is maybe not so valuable but if you are loose with everything you will probably have a shitty few weeks at some points in the future. \"\"no aa\"\" lol\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9436059cc8d42a2266be9bde9f4ef66c",
"text": "\"You're not focusing in the right place and neither is anyone else on this thread because this isn't about the guy owning you money... This is about you not having enough money to pay your rent. If rent wasn't due and the utility bills weren't piling up, you wouldn't be trying to justify taking money out of someone else's account. So let's triage this. Your #1 problem isn't hunting down Dr. Deadbeat's wallet. So put a pin in that for now and get to the real deal. Getting rent paid. Right? OK, you said he called \"\"regarding a business I have\"\". It's great that you have your own business. Are you also employed elsewhere? If you are, then you really should simply go to your employer and tell them you are in financial distress. Tell them that right now you can't cover your rent or bills and you want to know if they can help, i.e. give you an advance from your paycheck, do a withdrawal/loan from a retirement savings that's in your employee benefits package, etc... They will HELP YOU because it's in their best interest as much as it is in yours. Foregoing that, consider these thoughts... If you were to go your grandparents telling them what you told all of us here, and ask them the same \"\"do you think it's ok to...\"\", they would say something close to \"\"Absolutely DO NOT touch someone else bank account EVER! It doesn't matter what information you have, how you got it, or what you think they owe you. Do NOT touch it. There's a legal system that will help you get it from them if they truly do owe it to you.\"\" I guarantee you this, withdrawing funds from an account on which you are NOT an authorized signatory is both financial theft as well as identity theft. Bonus if you do it on a computer, because you'd then be facing criminal charges that go beyond your specific legal district, i.e. you'd face criminal charges on a national level. If convicted, odds are you'd be sentenced within the penal guidelines of the Netherlands 1983 Financial Penalties Act (FPA). Ergo, you would have much much much less money in the very near future, which would feel like an eternal walk through the Hell of the court system. Ultimately, over your lifetime you would be exponentially poorer than you may think you are now. I strongly urge you to rebrand this \"\"financial loss\"\" as \"\"Tuition at the School of Hard Knocks\"\". There's one last thing... the train jumps the tracks for me during your story... This guy called you? Right?... (raised eyebrow) What kind of business do you \"\"have\"\"? The sense of desperation and naiveté in your urgent need for money to pay rent. The fact that you are accepting payment for services by conducting a bank transfer specifically from your clients account directly toward your own utility bills is a big red flag. Bypassing business accounting and using revenue for personal finances isn't legitimate business practices. Plus you are doing it by using the bank information of brand new client who is a TOTAL stranger. Now consider fact that this total stranger was so exceedingly generous to someone from whom he wanted personal services to be rendered. Those all tell me that he's doing something he wants the other person to do for him and he doesn't want anyone else to know. The fact that he's being so benevolent like a 'sugar daddy' tells me that he feels guilty for having someone do what he's asking them to do. Perceived financial superiority is the smoothest of smooth power tools that predators and abusers have in their bag. For instance, an outlandish financial promise is probably the easiest way to target someone who is vulnerable; and then seduce them into being their victim. Redirecting your focus on how much better life will be once your problem is solved by this cash rather than focusing on the fact that they're taking advantage of you. Offering to pay rates that are dramatically excessive is a way of buying a clean conscious, because he's doing something that will \"\"rescue you\"\" from a crisis. The final nail in the coffin for me was that he left so abruptly and your implied instinct suggesting his reason was a lie. It sounds like he got scared or ashamed of his actions and ran out. It paints a picture that this was sex-for-money Good luck to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0df4c9f2930e72408863d2d65f19c3d4",
"text": "A routing number and account number are on the bottom of every check. If anybody who ever handled your checks or even saw your checks could just withdraw as much money as they wanted, the whole banking system would need to be reworked. In short, just having that info is not enough. Not legally.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7b379bedf230127771cc0de462510532",
"text": "This is the information required to wire money into your account from abroad. They would only need the account number and the ABA (routing) number to withdraw, and it is printed on every check you give.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3179e94f6575f62b120ad585ad7631fc",
"text": "\"Answers to your questions: (1) Do bank account numbers have a checksum. NO. (2) Is it plausible that they found out your number after sending you the money by \"\"accident\"\". NO. There is no way to find out who possesses a particular bank account just by the number. Also, how they even know they made a mistake? They targeted you and knew who you were and your bank account number before the \"\"money\"\" was sent. (3 and 4) Is this a scam? YES. They never paid you any money. They forged a check for a large amount and deposited it in an account. Then divided it up, wiring pieces to multiple people, all of whom they investigated beforehand. Since it is a bank to bank transfer it clears. Once the forgery is discovered, all the transfers will be unwound. If you had sent them money, you would have lost that money. Other things to note: There is zero chance of a wire transfer going to the wrong person because the sender has to list the name and address on the account as well as the number. You basically did the right thing which is to notify your bank that you received an unauthorized transfer into your account. Never accept money into your account from someone you don't know. If money \"\"appears\"\" in your account tell the bank it is an error and probably proceeds from a forgery and they will take care of it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "338231cbc70b8a243b50a393e02af534",
"text": "\"Here we go again! Why, oh why, would someone just open a bank account in your name with that much money for no good reason? Unless there's a very rich relative in your family tree, this can not come to a good ending. Besides, if this was money being left to you by someone as part of an inheritance, you'd hear from attorneys from the estate. Notwithstanding everything @NickR posted about the details of what makes it suspicious, ask yourself why a banker would contact you by email about an account with this much money in it. The bank would, at the very least, send you a registered/certified letter on official stationery. So what happens here is when you give them your banking information, whoever it is that's doing this will clean out your account, and that's for starters. They will ask for enough information to steal your identity too, and if you have good credit, that'll be gone in a heartbeat. The best scams (meaning the most successful ones) always appeal to peoples' greed, using large amounts of money that just miraculously belong to the victim, if only they'd give a little information to \"\"transfer\"\" the money. Worse yet, most of these scams will come up with some kind of \"\"fee\"\", \"\"tax\"\" or other expense that you have to pre-pay in order to make the transfer happen, so this just adds insult to injury when you find out (the hard way!) you've been scammed. DO NOT reply to the email you received or, if you already have, don't send any more responses. If they think they may have you on the hook then they won't stop trying, and it will become very messy very quickly. THIS IS NOT REAL MONEY! It isn't yours, it doesn't really exist, and all it will do is come to no good end if you go any further with it. Stay safe, my friend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d878d4ce304911a419232aaea456523",
"text": "Definitely a scam. Don't call him or do anything. Stay calm, there is no damage done yet. I met someone online three weeks ago. ... Left his wallet, debit card, credit cards, drivers license, etc. in the room In the entire world its only you he can bank upon ... someone whom hes met online just few weeks ago; there are no relatives, friends !!! why would the hotel manager Fed-Ex or UPS the items to my home address ... and not to his own address? Upon receipt, the engineer will give me his password to the Bank of America account so he can access his account Why doesn't he have internet? I am supposed to call him in the next hour or so and let him know if I will be doing this tomorrow. Don't call. Don't reply. The $150 is just a starter bait to see if one is gullible enough to take it and then there is more and more by different ways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5acb983eea291394cd7c2527da68dd04",
"text": "Call your bank and inquire if they send out the kinds of notices like the one you received. Don't call the number in the message, because if it is a scam, you're calling the scammers themselves, more than likely. Be very cautious about this situation, and if your bank is local then it might not hurt to pay a visit to a local branch to talk to someone in person. Print out the message(s) you receive to show them and let their fraud division look into it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aaf70524fa96219a7e613e2ad496396",
"text": "Someone online asking for your bank account info never has your best interests at heart. They can send you a check and while it may take a while to really clear, they can't use it to suck money out of your account. Be very cautious.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e10f9fb1ebe25140c06de0de01657db",
"text": "He has my bank account info, and I just want to know where I stand legally. Legally you can't keep the money. It would either go back to the originator or to Government unclaimed department. I got a bunch of missed calls from an unknown number and a really unprofessional email from a guy who supposedly worked for UNICEF saying I had 4 hours until I am suppose to be visited by police and that there was nowhere I could run to. These are common tactics employed to ensure you take some action and transfer the real money somewhere. Do not succumb to such tactics. The money is still in my account I have not touched it. Advise your Bank immediately that there is this deposit into your account that is not your's. Let the bank take appropriate action. Do not authorize Bank to debit your account. The max you can do is authorize the bank to reverse this transaction. The best is stick to statement that said transaction is not yours and Bank is free to do what is right. There is a small difference and very important. If you authorize bank to debit, you have initiated a payment. So if the original payment were revered by originator bank, you are left short of money. However if your instructions are very clear, that this specific transaction can be reversed, you cannot be additionally debited if this transaction is reversed. He has my bank account info, Depending on how easy / difficult, my suggestion would be monitor this account closely, best is if you can close it out and open a new one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e23c472316d0d2fdc6ead02d2b4c46e1",
"text": "Keep in mind that in order to fund your online casino account, you either had to provide credit/debit card info, or you had to give them your bank account number band routing number already. Now, assuming you've seen no fraudulent activity on your account(s) since then, and it was you who initiated the contact with them, what they're asking for is not totally unreasonable, nor is it all that unusual. MANY companies require you to provide account/routing info to do financial business with them, which doesn't automatically equate to nefarious purposes, so don't let yourself go down that rabbit hole unless there's some other serious red flag to the situation which you haven't shared with us. It is a bit odd they'd send you a check for a portion of the winnings, but maybe that's to demonstrate good faith on their part as to why they need you to provide them information to send the remainder of your winnings. That being said, the suggestion to open a bank account solely for purposes of receiving your winnings is a good one. I would go a step further and, once the transfer is made, go to the bank in person and withdraw it in cash. Then you can deposit it into your regular bank account without there being any possible connection between the two, just in case you decide to indulge your fears about this. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d5890e675f59e1fbb5cf3627c912696",
"text": "The only way someone can take money out of your account using just your sort code and account number is if you set up a direct debit to pay them (or someone pretending to be you sets up the direct debit). Even with Paperless DD's this can take some time. Anyone who can process debit card transactions can take money from your account if they have your debit card number, expiry date and cvv number. Direct debits do not have an expiry date so they are normally used for paying automatic regular long term bills (like rent, rates, electricity etc). Note, anyone with an ordinary bank account can pay money into account, using your sort code and account number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d5b2fbe25a7e017d381403558ff5054",
"text": "\"If it makes you feel any better, I now bank with a credit union. These WF assholes called me one day to tell me that someone had tried to withdraw $500 from my account and that I needed to sign up for a more secure account, of course with a $16 monthly charge. So I did what anybody would do... went to the bank and ask questions right? After I got there and mention the problem they told me that nothing was wrong with my account, that no transactions were attempted and even if they did attempt them and were canceled they would still show up but they didn't. Few minutes later I got another call from that guy and he was telling me that the problem was taken care of and that I didn't need to go to the bank. After that I was just suspicious. Basically what it came down to was that somebody was trying to set me up for accounts that I didn't ask for just so he can get promoted at my expense. They gave me a opportunity to report him but I didn't because I knew him personally, he was one of my \"\"friends\"\" and at the time he had two kids. I didn't want him to lose his job. I told him that what he did was completely fucked up and that you don't do that to people outside of WF. That same day I withdrew all my money. I still remember cutting the conversation short after WF tried to convince me all kinds of ways not to do that. I been with a Credit Union about 3 years now and so far so good.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb31aa53139708b7c3827e7e98a67dc2",
"text": "\"As others have noted, US law says that if you have over half the bill, it's worth the full value, under half is worth nothing. I presume if it is very close to half, if even careful measurements show that you have 50.5%, you'll have difficulty cashing it in, precisely because the government and the banking system aren't going to allow themselves to be easily fooled by someone cutting bills in half and then trying to redeem both halves. I've seen several comments on here about how you'd explain to the bank how so many bills were cut in half. What if you just told them the truth? Not the part about killing someone, of course, but tell them that you made a deal, neither of you wanted to bother with complex contracts and having to go to court if the other side didn't pay up, so your buddy cut all the bills in half, etc. As you now have both halves and they clearly have the same serial number, this no real evidence of fraud. Okay, this is technically illegal -- 18 US Code Section 333, \"\"Whoever mutilates, CUTS, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.\"\" But you didn't do it, the other guy did. I presume the point of this law is to say that you can't get a hold of currency belonging to someone else and mutilate it so as to make it worthless. As he's now given you both halves, I doubt anyone would bother to track him down and prosecute him. Just BTW, while checking up on the details of the law, I stumbled across 18 USC 336, which says that it's illegal to write a check for less than $1, with penalties of 6 months in prison. I just got a check from AT&T for 15 cents for one of those class action suits where the lawyers get $100 million and the victims get 15 cents each. Apparently that was illegal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0032a751ea184ad652de18d6dacd66d",
"text": "\"I would call the bank and ask how the person is on the account. If they are an owner, or are an authorized user, or what type of owner they are, etc. If the bank makes the distinction between \"\"user\"\" and \"\"owner\"\" then most likely, your funds are not able to be seized. If they are a joint owner, then, typically, 100% of the money is yours and 100% of the money is theirs and either of you could withdraw all the money, close the account, or have the money seized as part of a legal action.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63cd33d7c01cb17aa1b8d17a2cd0739d",
"text": "If you can provide evidence that you are the person who opened the account (which may be as simple as providing your signature, since this isn't really different from asking for a bank check or inter-bank transfer or ATM-network transfer), there should be no problem. Contact your bank and ask them what information they need to provide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f293c3173d07543b8ffd67b7f3a5569",
"text": "The typical scam is that they overpay you - 'accidentially', or for some obscure reason they claim, and they ask you to wire the extra money either back or to someone else. Because you wire it, that money is gone for sure. Then they undo the original transaction (or it turns out it was fake anyway), and you end up with a loss. Maybe he claims that he wants to buy some more stuff, and the fees are high, so he sends you all the payments in one amount, and you pay the other sellers from it, something like that. There are honest nigerians though, actually most of them. Either way, the real problem is that the original payment is fake. Whichever way it comes to you, you need to make sure that it cannot be reversed or declared invalid after you think you have it. Wire transfer is the only way I know that is not reversible. Bank transfers are reversible; don't think you have it just because it arrives in your bank account. Talk to your bank about what all can happen. If you make the deal, when you send the bike, think about insuring it (and make him pay for that too). That way, you are out of any loss risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a96543e87a7d692090fe7441ce7b12c7",
"text": "I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a41cff5f50a5273570348663170e5593
|
What's the minimum revenue an LLC must make in Florida or NY states?
|
[
{
"docid": "d76bbc43cd3bf93b8b9e3ae212e99e7b",
"text": "\"Depends on the State. In California, for example, you pay a franchise tax of $800 every year just for having LLC, and in addition to that - income tax on gross revenue. But in other States (like Wyoming, for example) there's no taxes at all, only registration fees (which may still amount to ~$100-300 a year). IRS doesn't care about LLC's at all (unless you chose to treat is as a corporation). You need to understand that in the US we have the \"\"Federal Government\"\" (IRS is part of that) and the \"\"State Government\"\" that deals with business entities, in each of the 50 States. Since you're talking about Italy, and not EU, you should similarly be talking about the relevant State, and not US.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3a867c6f052ff0ca6c6709e1a4dfacbe",
"text": "The LLC portion is completely irrelevant. Don't know why you want it. You can create a joint/partnership trading account without the additional complexity of having LLC. What liability are you trying to limit here? Her sisters will file tax returns in the us using the form 1040NR, and only reporting the dividends they received, everything else will be taxed by Vietnam. You'll have to investigate how to file tax returns there as well. That said, you'll need about $500,000 each to invest in the regional centers. So you're talking about 1.5 million of US dollars at least. From a couple of $14K gifts to $1.5M just by trading? I don't see how this is feasible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b785bcf974c97d43b0f71c871e9a9f2a",
"text": "No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56366def285b890e0e187764b2691abf",
"text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acbac83c34259f4b1376602914b038fe",
"text": "Maybe I can explain a little clearer: Your LLC is not a person, and cannot have taxes withheld on its behalf. Therefore, anyone paying your company should not withhold taxes. If they are paying you directly, and withholding taxes, they are treating you as an employee, and will probably issue a W2 instead of a 1099. Put it this way: Your LLC is a separate company providing services to that company. They shouldn't withhold taxes any more than they would when paying their ISP, or power company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90605b0a6f67febcdf781d210077a575",
"text": "I'm not sure I am fully understanding the nuance of your question, but based on your answer in the comments you and your business are not separate legal entities. So your income is the full $70K, there is no distinct business to have income. If you clarify your question to include why you want to know this I might be able to give a more meaningful answer for your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78afcaa1e3f306174cdd0ed42651cd2e",
"text": "how does a single employee LLC bring in 500k? I mean if you want to have it in a low-tax environment, you can probably invest it in something and then pull them out? I don't think you can put away pre-tax earnings to then use on salary costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac312006d6f1c199884fac1886a4e1fc",
"text": "The LLC will not be liable for anything, it is disregarded for tax purposes. If you're doing any work while in the US, or you (or your spouse) are a green card holder or a US citizen - then you (not the LLC) may be liable, may be required to file, pay, etc. Unless you're employing someone, or have more than one member in your LLC, you do not need an EIN. Re the bank - whatever you want. If you want you can open an account in an American bank. If you don't - don't. Who cares?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf49cfcd2a5ddfdcc47d4ebf7667b29",
"text": "I'm not confident that the requirements for 2017 are up yet, but assuming they don't change much from those of 2016, then probably not if you have no other earnings this year. If you make $500 a month, then you will make $6,000 this year. This is below the filing requirements for most taxpayers, unless you are married but filing separately. At the end of 2017 you should tally up your earnings (including earnings from other sources) find which category you find yourself in on the table, and make a final determination of whether you'll need to file.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2165327c3c3f3f94f8d28852faad5bfd",
"text": "Driver's license isn't relevant. If NYS considers you a part-year resident, they assess income tax on a pro rata basis. NY is broke now, so expect them to be really obnoxious about it if you make a lot of money. California probably has a similar policy. If you really make a lot of money, the demands of the states in these matters are insane. I've read of cases where a state has actually demanded that an individual provide documentation of their in-/out-of-state status for every day of the year!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ec07a7084d37b0262ffb6813149b45",
"text": "Residents pay tax on all of the income they receive during the calendar year from all sources, so you'll at least need to file and pay New York state income taxes on this money regardless. I can't answer whether you'll need to file and pay Colorado state income tax on this money as well. Generally speaking, you need to file a return for each state in which you live, receive income, or have business interests. If you are required to file a Colorado state income tax return, however, you can claim a credit for taxes paid to another state on your New York state income tax return using form IT-112-R (see the form and instructions).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fd6d379a23acdd8369d63e87fb51d0e",
"text": "You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction. Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d712e4318ff47ff4c92c5ddf4fa22d",
"text": "I'm not certain I understand what you're trying to do, but it sounds like you're trying to create a business expense for paying off your personal debt. If so - you cannot do that. It will constitute a tax fraud, and if you have additional partners in the LLC other than you and your spouse - it may also become an embezzlement issue. Re your edits: Or for example, can you create a tuition assistance program within your company and pay yourself out of that for the purposes of student loan money. Explicitly forbidden. Tuition assistance program cannot pay more than 5% of its benefits to owners. See IRS pub 15-B. You would think that if there was a way to just incorporate and make your debts pre-tax - everyone would be doing it, wouldn't you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af46f9f222b03afc70c4c684572cf355",
"text": "\"For Non-Resident filers, New York taxes New York-sourced income. That includes: real or tangible personal property located in New York State (including certain gains or losses from the sale or exchange of an interest in an entity that owns real property in New York State); services performed in New York State; a business, trade, profession, or occupation carried on in New York State; and a New York S corporation in which you are a shareholder (including installment income from an IRC 453 transaction). There are some exclusions as well. It is all covered in the instructions to form IT-203. However, keep in mind that \"\"filing\"\" as non-resident doesn't make you non-resident. If you spend 184 days or more in New York State, and you have a place to stay there - you are resident. See definitions here. Even if you don't actually live there and consider yourself a CT resident.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "616eeb050776c24607530a993d6be9d5",
"text": "\"New York will want to you to pay taxes on income from \"\"New York sources\"\". I'm not sure what this means to a freelance web developer. If your wife is doing freelance web development under the same business entity as she did in New York (ie. a New York sole proprietor, corporation, etc), you probably do need to file. From nonresident tax form manual: http://tax.ny.gov/pdf/2011/inc/it203i_2011.pdf If you were a nonresident of New York State, you are subject to New York State tax on income you received from New York State sources in 2011. If you were a resident of New York State for only part of 2011, you are subject to New York State tax on all income you received while you were a resident of the state and on income you received from New York State sources while you were a nonresident. To compute the amount of tax due, use Form IT-203, Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return. You will compute a base tax as if you were a full-year resident, then determine the percentage of your income that is subject to New York State tax and the amount of tax apportioned to New York State.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f32db279288b5726c22159492891b6d4",
"text": "\"Since as you say, an LLC is a pass-through entity, you will be making income in the U.S. when you sell to U.S. customers. And so you will need to file the appropriate personal tax forms in the US. As well as potentially in one or more States. The US government does not register LLCs. The various States do. So you'll be dealing with Oregon, Wisconsin, Wyoming, one of those for the LLC registration. You will also need to have a registered agent in the State. That is a big deal since the entire point of forming an LLC is to add a liability shield. You would lose the liability shield by not maintaining the business formalities. Generally nations aim to tax income made in their nation, and many decline to tax income that you've already paid taxes on in another nation. A key exception: If money is taxed by the U.S. it may also be taxed by one of the States. Two States won't tax the same dollar. Registering an LLC in one State does not mean you'll pay state taxes there. Generally States tax income made in their State. It's common to have a Wyoming LLC that never pays a penny of tax in Wyoming. Officially, an LLC doing business in a State it did not form in, must register in that State as a \"\"foreign LLC\"\" even though it's still in the USA. The fee is usually the same as for a domestic LLC. \"\"Doing business\"\" means something more than incidental sales, it means having a presence specifically in the State somehow. It gets complicated quick. If you are thinking of working in someone's app ecosystem like the Apple Store, Google Play, Steam etc. Obviously they want their developers coding, not wrestling with legalities, so some of them make a priority out of clearing and simplifying legal nuisances for you. Find out what they do for you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5abe20b4daba464d9f92fb31fa740d2c
|
What factors would affect the stock price of a sports team?
|
[
{
"docid": "8b4dc078b475c44340808025bebf40b0",
"text": "Costs are almost entirely salaries Apart from all the usual costs incurred by running a large, complex, business, ManU are servicing debt that is getting up around the GBP500M mark. This is debt racked up by the Glazer family since purchasing the team, as well as debt they took with them to the team. What sort of factors would affect their share price? Product endorsements, ticket prices, attendance, and merchandise sales are all important contributors. But also, performance in the domestic league and in domestic and European cups are also factors. Should their participation falter for any reason, that ripples through everything (decrease in brand exposure) - and this is, along with the debt problem, the biggest risk. Edit: By the way, you are aware that this is an NYSE IPO; you can see how they have done on the FTSE over the past 10 years or so.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e44598dada0a8ebf91496f7b40fd3b2c",
"text": "Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b3b7cdfb6a85bd1b9986d8b380894a1",
"text": "There's an interesting paper, Does Investor Attention Affect Stock Prices? (Sandhya et al), where researchers look at related stock tickers. When a large cap, better-known stock jumps, smaller firms with similar symbols also rise. Pretty nuts -- I interviewed the author of the paper [here](http://www.tradestreaming.com/?p=3745). There's also a transcript.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52d826b925842aa604e0b295fcd54608",
"text": "\"No, the stock market is not there for speculation on corporate memorabilia. At its base, it is there for investing in a business, the point of the investment being, of course, to make money. A (successful) business earns money, and that makes it valuable to its owners since that money can be distributed to them. Shares of stock are pieces of business ownership, and so are valuable. If you knew that the business would have profit of $10,000,000 every year, and would distribute that to the owners of each of its 10,000,000 shares each year, you would know to that each share would receive $1 each year. How much would such a share be worth to you? If you could instead put money in a bank and get 5% a year back, to get $1 a year back you would have to put $20 into the bank. So maybe that share of stock is worth about $20 to you. If somebody offers to sell you such a share for $18, you might buy it; for $23, maybe you pass up the offer. But business is uncertain, and how much profit the business will make is uncertain and will vary through time. So how much is a share of a real business worth? This is a much harder call, and people use many different ways to come up with how much they should pay for a share. Some people probably just think something like \"\"Apple is a good company making money, I'll buy a share at whatever price it is being offered at right now.\"\" Others look at every number available, build models of the company and the economy and the risks, all to estimate what a share might be worth, more or less. There is no indisputable value for a share of a successful business. So, what effect does a company's earnings have on the price of its stock? You can only say that for some of the people who might buy or sell shares, higher earnings will, all other thing being equal, have them be willing to spend more to buy it or demand more when selling it. But how much more is not quantifiable but depends on each person's approach to the problem. Higher earnings would tend to raise the price of the stock. Yet there are other factors, such as people who had expected even higher earnings, whose actions would tend to lower the price, and people who are OK with the earnings now, but suspect trouble for the business is appearing on the horizon, whose actions would also tend to lower the price. This is why people say that a stock's price is determined by supply and demand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c26abce4a4b994467b349f12d67579d0",
"text": "\"Below is just a little information on this topic from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": The most significant non-company-specific factor affecting stock price is the market sentiment, while the most significant company-specific factor is the earning power of the company. Perhaps it would be safe to say that technical analysis is more related to psychology/emotions, while fundamental analysis is more related to reason – that is why it is said that fundamental analysis tells you what to trade and technical analysis tells you when to trade. Thus, many stock traders use technical analysis as a timing tool for their entry and exit points. Technical analysis is more suitable for short-term trading and works best with large caps, for stock prices of large caps are more correlated with the general market, while small caps are more affected by company-specific news and speculation…: Perhaps small stock traders should not waste a lot of time on fundamental analysis; avoid overanalyzing the financial position, market position, and management of the focus companies. It is difficult to make wise trading decisions based only on fundamental analysis (company-specific news accounts for only about 25 percent of stock price fluctuations). There are only a few important figures and ratios to look at, such as: perhaps also: Furthermore, single ratios and figures do not tell much, so it is wise to use a few ratios and figures in combination. You should look at their trends and also compare them with the company’s main competitors and the industry average. Preferably, you want to see trend improvements in these above-mentioned figures and ratios, or at least some stability when the times are tough. Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market. Some may succeed purely on the basis of technical analysis, some purely due to fundamental analysis, and others from a combination of these two like most of the great stock traders have done (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen). It is just a matter of finding out what best fits your personality. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "488f6f0cd9c496c5400d2bcbdd11f946",
"text": "I haven't followed the stock in about 6 years. Back when I followed it, because of the concentration in Ohio, at least back then, Ohio sports teams performance drove the profitablity of the chains. I remember the implied vol of the options spiking, along with MSG, for The Decision because LeBron would drive people to bdubs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c9e754e3769d7ad1a16dbc3e6c90ba5",
"text": "It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "425ca438f571c50d943009d1bf53592a",
"text": "Do what's outlined here. The capital asset pricing model will reveal how an asset (a stock in this instance) performed relative to the market performance for that time period. This by itself will answer your assignment's question but allowing you to traverse much deeper in the intricate details of the field. You'll learn a few interesting things on the way! Good luck :)",
"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": "f6f3af904870fa87141b1519e22bcd73",
"text": "Sure.. its possible, its exactly what activist investors do (with institutional money - e.g. pension funds, family foundations). Crowdsourcing probably implies an average <$100 donation per contributor in your mind however, so you'd need a lot of contributors (as opposed to an institution writing a $1B check out of the box) As a benchmark, you can start agitating even without owning shares, but it probably lends credibility to have a few percentage points. As of today, GS's market cap is $46B, JPM's market cap is $122B, BAML's market cap is $77B... so you'd need at least $1B of capital to buy a percentage point or two. At $100 per ticket. that's 10M individual donors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "392d53e0c27b44b922d2b8d50513eb4d",
"text": "\"You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium. If \"\"the market\"\" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company. In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value. Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else. (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08731cc1aa3d6b5299b0f83c6ebf6b87",
"text": "I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO. They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO. In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding. This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "989448718845535e4a5840c6685f35e0",
"text": "Stock values are generally reflective of a company's overall potential; and to some extent investor confidence in the prospect of a continued growth of that potential. Sales over such a short period of time such as a single weekend do not noticeably impact a stock's valuation. A stock's value has more to do with whether or not they meet market expectations for sales over a certain period of time (generally 1 quarter of a year) than it does that they actually had sales (or profits) on any given day. Of course, catastrophic events, major announcements, or new product releases do sometimes cause significant changes in a stock's value. For this reason you will often see stocks have significant volatility in periods around earnings announcements, merger rumors, or when anything unexpected happens in the world that might benefit or hurt their potential sales and growth. But overall a normal, average weekend of sales is already built into the price of a stock during normal trading.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92166394d6765317c4455e071a60fd2b",
"text": "I heard a very smart business guy (prof from UPenn) tell us that GE's lack of focus (what does GE do?) probably hurt the stock price. He said that splitting the company up into multiple more focused companies would probably help overall value. They'd be more susceptible to variations in the businesses though, so risk to the individual parts would go up. So I don't know how right that guy was. GE definitely can't seem to excite the market no matter how many times it tries to reinvent itself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb34d6f5694c9ab4813a79be7e88e943",
"text": "\"Not sure I fully understand your question but my take on it is this: There a lot of people out there that admire companies and own the stock just because they like the company. For example, I know some kids who own Disney stock. They only have a share or two but they keep it because they want to say \"\"I own a part of Disney.\"\" Realistically speaking, if they hold or sell the stock it is so minuscule to have any realizable affect on the overall value of the stock which does not really make the company look better from an investor perspective. However, if a company has people that just want to own the stock just like your uncle are indeed \"\"better\"\" because they must have provided a product or service that is valued intrinsically.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3acf275d77964f6b617beee49dcc0d64",
"text": "There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dd84c678d706be9f3baf2bc7efddb00e
|
Why so much noise about USA's credit rating being lowered?
|
[
{
"docid": "f0be4c290617e9cebd4b30f64ba5183f",
"text": "Because US bonds have had the prior impression of absolute invincibility and safety that has helped the dollar become the world's reserve currency and the United States borrow essentially at will. For the people that care what S&P says, the aura of invincibility is broken and it is conceivable, in SOME universe, for the US to default on its debt. This is of little practical importance on its own, but it's yet another signpost on the road to Chinese or European economic hegemony.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62fce22d874701280896565f7ce28c74",
"text": "\"Pension- and many \"\"low-risk\"\" investment funds may only invest in AAA-rated stocks and bonds. While the S&P rating alone doesn't imply that such funds must immediately disinvest in US bonds (Fitch and Moody's are holding), it does create the risk that the other rating agencies will follow suite and also lower the US rating. As the largest issuer of bonds, controller of the world's reserve currency, and with many emerging markets placing almost all their current account surpluses in US bonds, this risk change has implications everywhere. Some companies will already start disinvestment while some investors will start demanding higher interest returns in order to buy US bonds. It isn't yet a stampede, but the gates are now open. That said, S&P is simply reflecting the opinions of bond traders. Markets were already unstable long before the downrating. However, from the US perspective, it is a timely reminder to politicians that the global balance is shifting and that the US cannot count on incumbency to protect it from the disapproval of financial analysts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9dab648c073d7d951d574e279b4de7",
"text": "Dollar is the lingua franca of the financial industry and unluckily it is the US currency. It is till today considered the most safest investment bet, that is why you have China possesing $3 trillion of US debt, as an investment albiet a very safe one. Financial investors get in queue to by US bonds the moment they are put up for sale. Because of the AAA rating the investors consider it to be safe at a specific rate. Now when you lower the credit rating you are indirectly asking the US government that you want a higher return(yield) on your investments. When you ask for higher yields, it translates into higher interest rates (money US would get for bonds issued decreases and so more bonds are issued). So you basically start looking at a slowdown in consumer spendings households and businesses. With already defaults, repossesions and lesser spending, the slowdown would increase manifold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1527d960ca0ae909169234ac934632c1",
"text": "The credit scale is deceptive, it goes: AAA, AA, A, BBB, BBB-, BB+, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, D. In reality it should be A,B,C,D,E, F, G,H, I, etc. The current scale does not reflect with clarity the ranking of risks and ratings. AA is much worse than AAA, but the uncertainty involved can be scary. Check out these corporate and sovereign debt credit ratings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41545ca0fa6ba9f24a5671dfa997581d",
"text": "\"Because the USA is the world's biggest economy - everybody in the world works with the USA (even if the american companies are not direct suppliers, they are surely somewhere in the supply chain). If USA credit rating is lower, that means american companies will find it harder to get loans to finance their business (i.e. the price of capital will be higher), and this will consequently lead to higher prices for partners of american companies, etc. This will certainly lead to slowdown of global economy. Plus, the lower credit rating also means that the USA govt. is less likely to pay off the debts (Chinese already stated they will diversify their bonds portfolio -i.e. they will start selling out american govt. bonds). This will lead to cuts in public sector in USA, less spending by the consumers, also probably less import from abroad and less travel which will affect - you get it - the \"\"RoW\"\". It's not by chance we have a saying in Europe, when USA sneezes, the rest of the world catches a flu!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c415f4a427b7a961daed56c38c5641f7",
"text": "Oh ok I see what you are getting at with the misdirection angle. I was wondering if there was a deeper meaning. Like making it more expensive for other nation to borrow money would help in some way for the US to unload it’s garbage?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1ec558b13fb76754d0fdaf49b981640",
"text": "Reaching the debt ceiling is an admission that the US can't pay its bills as they come due. Credit rating agencies could cut the US's debt rating, making acquisition of new debt much more difficult. Creditors could file for involuntary bankruptcy, forcing the government to pay back the debt - which, to be clear, it simply is incapable of doing in any kind of reasonable timeframe. The loss of confidence in the US's ability to pay its debts... Given how the US is such a financial and economic center of the world (partially by design, partially by happenstance), it would probably be disastrous worldwide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cfd2a73d15108f80c99e0fac73fa980",
"text": "Also, interest rates and credit risk directly corelate to Greece's ability to service the debt. Japan could be at 400% and Greece 50%, but if they can't make payments or have credit good enought to refi the debt, that's when they will default. Meanwhile, the fact that they are risky drives up rates further and makes it even harder to make payments. It's called the death spiral. Japan has low rates, solid GDP and good credit = non-issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d0a6244ee92298c6ccc80895748690c",
"text": "Lowering of the US credit rating would affect all US bonds. Some institutional investments are required to invest in securities with a certain credit rating (i.e. money markets and some low risk mutual funds). If the credit rating is lowered these institutions would be required to dump their US bond holdings. This could have a serious affect on bond prices. The lower bond prices would drive up yields. If the US credit rating was lowered after you purchased TIPS then the price you could sell your TIPS for would most probably be lower then what you bought them. You would lose money. All US bonds, including TIPS, would be affected by a lower credit rating since the credit rating is suppose to indicate the borrower's ability to repay the debt. This is independent of inflation. TIPS provide no additional benefit over regular bonds in regard to credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f441e55e66ed879cef39d6545bc24285",
"text": "Don't know why you're getting downvoted, wouldn't be worried about a credit crisis until we get bad jobs numbers, so far they've been pretty fucking good. On top of it interest rates are at historic lows. Maybe in the future but not now",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22bbe56378aea4fba20cd691be1adc8a",
"text": "Because it's barely reported and when it is most people don't understand some of the fundamental principles of finance to grasp the implications of it all. It's not their fault really. You can blame a man for a lack of wanting to be educated or no concern for intellectual curiosity but you can't for just being plainly uneducated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49298734e5683df12355c7dbccf30bb4",
"text": "\"The default scenario that we're talking about in the Summer of 2011 is a discretionary situation where the government refuses to borrow money over a certain level and thus becomes insolvent. That's an important distinction, because the US has the best credit in the world and still carries enormous borrowing power -- so much so that the massive increases in borrowing over the last decade of war and malaise have not affected the nation's ability to borrow additional money. From a personal finance point of view, my guess is that after the \"\"drop dead date\"\" disclosed by the Treasury, you'd have a period of chaos and increasing liquidity issues after government runs out of gimmicks like \"\"borrowing\"\" from various internal accounts and \"\"selling\"\" assets to government authorities. I don't think the markets believe that the Democrats and Republicans are really willing to destroy the country. If they are, the market doesn't like surprises.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c70a614589354717b2fe6d2c6f2c6b2f",
"text": "^This. As we can see with the pending $125b bail-out that Europe will provide. Imagine, if India was in the place of the Spanish? Who would conjure up such a bail-out for them? As said by 23_47 earlier, the credit rating is a measure of risk. A country backed by a 17-country alliance (Eurozone) is less risky to invest in than a country without such support.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53a4702afa7b5c8d2feab0fd72d0caa6",
"text": "\"This is known as an inverted yield curve. It is rare, and can be caused by a few things, as discussed at the link. It can be because the view is that the economy will slow and therefore interest rates will go down. It is not caused by \"\"secret\"\" preparation. It could also be that there is generally in the world a move towards safer investments, making their interest rates cheaper. If I had to guess (and this guess is worth what you paid for it) it is because Australia's interest rate is significantly greater than other parts of the world, long term lower risk investment is being attracted there, as it gets a better return than elsewhere. This is pushing rates lower on long term bonds. So I would not take it as an indication of a soon-to-be economic downturn simply because in this global economy Australia is different in ways that influence investment and move interest rates.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3183eaf434c9e5a766a8bacab88329e0",
"text": "In principle, a default will have no effect on your bank account. But if the US's credit rating is downgraded, the knock-on effects might cause some more bank failures, and if the debt ceiling is still in place then the FDIC insurance might not be able to pay out immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bfca67c5764c321162f28e2f725a737",
"text": "The picture talks is about assets on the Fed's balance sheet, which is very different than US government debt. Nor is there anything in the picture about corporate bottom lines, just US equities. The implication of the picture is that the Fed's QE program is propping up US equity prices, and it is not a comment on the US debt or corporate earnings. You're reading things that simply aren't there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "527ed0927a72d065546cc9c9b44eb994",
"text": "Should voters care? What is the scenario in which this debt actually becomes a problem? It seems to me that the money from this debt is largely going into the pockets of US Citizens, so less debt would mean less prosperity for Americans. What are the arguments against this assumption?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c93087d0f9e0211ac98e62b04d7fb3e5",
"text": "\"The sad part about this, IMHO, is that almost all of this new debt is \"\"bad debt\"\". Meaning it hasn't really gone into productive endeavors. Just stock buy-backs and such. So it has had minimal positive effects but is likely to be a drag on future growth for decades.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a5a111977188a198987902819134621",
"text": "So nothing preventing false ratings besides additional scrutiny from the market/investors, but there are some newer controls in place to prevent institutions from using them. Under the DFA banks can no longer solely rely on credit ratings as due diligence to buy a financial instrument, so that's a plus. The intent being that if financial institutions do their own leg work then *maybe* they'll figure out that a certain CDO is garbage or not. Edit: lead in",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b694223af98a9fc679eef5620ab4827d",
"text": "And I was being facetious, apologies. I think your assertion that the > entire crux of the story was that credit ratings agencies weren't transparent is a massive simplification of what happened. There are many great analyses of the crisis, and most of them come to the conclusion that 'it was a perfect storm' of different factors. I gather you think the problem was regulatory, I think the problem is systemic. To me it doesn't matter how the regulations are written what matters are the incentives. I see no evidence that the regulatory agencies in the US can effectively police, let alone effectively deter financial institutions from skirting the laws. In fact I think wall street runs on such a haystack of grey-area regulations that without wholesale, root and branch reform (e.g. antitrust laws similar to Standard Oil to be used on the big banks) there's no hope that any patchwork of regulations, well-intentioned as they may be, from making a difference. CDOs are a great example of what to avoid.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eb83554132bd4ae643b99d3e1a5d0458
|
How can I minimize the impact of the HST?
|
[
{
"docid": "a51c9ca986fa7b362dce41bd2e9c1e30",
"text": "The HST is a sales tax levied on most goods and services. It is important to realize that in both BC and Ontario, the new HST does not (in most cases) result in an increase in sales tax paid. For example, in Ontario the PST is 8% and when combined with the GST the sales tax is 13%. With the HST, the GST and PST are replaced by a single HST of 13% so the tax bill does not change. Some services that were previously not subject to PST (such as mutual fund service fees and labour) will now be subject to the HST. So some things will increase. Over time, this should not have a material impact on the consumer due to the way businesses remit GST/HST.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e634ebc5b8d5a558812184dc3afaf7cd",
"text": "One way to reduce the monthly payment due each month is to do everything to eliminate one of the loans. Make the minimum payment to the others, but put everything into eliminating one of the loans. Of course this assumes that you have separate loans for each year of school. Make sure that in trying to get aggressive on the loan repayment that you don't neglect the saving for a down payment. Each dollar you can put down will save you money on the mortgage. It might also allow you to reduce the mortgage insurance payments. If you pay one student loan back aggressively but can't eliminate it you might be worse off because you spent your savings but it didn't help you qualify for the mortgage. One way to maximize the impact is to not make the extra payments until you are ready to apply for the mortgage. Ask the lender if you qualify with all the student loans, or if you need to eliminate one. If you don't need to eliminate a loan, then apply the extra funds to a larger down payment or pay points to reduce the interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43008337a459088cb7629e446e46398c",
"text": "Taxes are insanely cheaper than West Coast and Northeast. I believe they are requiring a city with at least 1 million pop and existing public transit (I read that as train/subway). That eliminates a lot of cities. You are correct that it is rapidly catching up to some of the big names on prop cost, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb2a49abc7f38198e5ab51a513439f22",
"text": "You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6357821fee16ea272b73dcb70b00be0a",
"text": "Raise wages by 20%, and cut the work force by 25%. Drive suppliers from expensive countries if production, like China, and to lower cost options like Vietnam to cut costs by another 1-2%. None if this is hard or complicated. Your job: don't end up relying on this sort of job to provide for yourself. Stay in school, kids. And, pay for school in cash, which you can earn by working for $12 per hour at Target before you go making babies and what not. If you can manage to control yourself for a few years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7553c50f195a743abb304f1d7a6f6530",
"text": "Until there is a significant price pressure, it’s always going to be cost prohibitive to build high in earthquake prone zones. Those mitigation measures don’t come cheap at all. As for the skyline, eh, that’s subjective. If the local culture values a “small town” or even bucolic feel, keeping buildings below tree lines isn’t regressive at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4348256d513a9d8a2d3a2b5139d8f9f",
"text": "Reducing your income by 20k is guaranteed to lower your tax bill by less than 20k (because there are no tax rates greater than 100%). Your goal shouldn't be to minimize taxes but to maximize total net income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e30d65a9331eed60fad1b351169a52df",
"text": "\"I've seen various blog posts (mostly from Penelope Trunk) refer to \"\"optimizers\"\" versus \"\"settlers.\"\" The optimizers are the go-getters, the ones always on the move, trying to optimize their time, their life, their experience, etc. They tend to be younger, on average, live in bigger cities, and on the whole, tend to be less happy. The settlers are the ones who settle for what is, live in smaller cities, and tend to be happier, albeit \"\"less interesting\"\". Assuming that your idea of \"\"slowing down\"\" refers to moving away from that maximizer lifestyle, yes, I think you'll probably save money. Apparently it costs money to be unhappy! Going out for meals everyday, going out with friends every evening, shopping for the latest and greatest whatever, buying the newest gizmo, trading up your car every 3 years, traveling every other weekend to far-off places, making your life \"\"interesting\"\" - these all cost, and far more than their opposites. Take time to be happy with what you have - enjoy your comfortable and broken-in shoes, enjoy your paid-off car, enjoy some quiet alone time with a good (library) book, appreciate the delicate tastes of a homecooked meal over the in-your-face greasebomb of restaurant food, take a walk, shut off the latest Apple iDevice, and just be. You'll save money, find calm, and feel refreshed. *Apologies for waxing philosophical - though the connotations of \"\"slowing down\"\" sort of insist on it :).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06e4704418d257227d647692a04fec2e",
"text": "If you are restricting yourself to Scotiabank (Both retail banking and iTrade), your choices are pretty limited. If you are exchanging more than CAD$25,000 to EUR without margin, you can call Scotiabank and ask for a quote with much lower spread than the published snapshots. The closest ETF that you are talking about is RWE.B on TSX, which is First Asset MSCI Europe Low Risk Weighted ETF (Unhedged). You will be exposed to huge equity market risk and you should do it only if you intend to hold it for 3-5 years. Another way of exchanging cash is without opening an account is through a currency exchange broker (search “toronto currency exchange” for relevant companies). First you send an email asking for a quote for the amount you wanted, then you send the CAD to them via cheque, and they would convert to EUR and deposit it to your EUR account at Scotiabank (retail banking). This method costs around 0.7% compared to 2.5% charged by Scotiabank. An example of these brokers is Interchange Currency Exchange in Toronto. If you are hedging more than 125000 EUR, the proper method is to open an account that supports trading Currency Futures on Globex (US CME group). You can long Euro/Canadian Dollar Futures on margin. The last method is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, put CAD in it, then borrow more CAD to buy EUR. This method costs a few dollars upon trading and the spread is negligible. You need to pay 2.25% per year margin interest through.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bce11302fb4b4d39a1a5db8e9fcbf92",
"text": "I'll break it down into steps. Total gain/ loss for the whole thing is 5 CAD. You only have to worry about these calculations if you keep some USD and convert it at your leisure. Or if you have a US dollar in your wallet from your last vacation. Don't forget to subtract commissions (converted to CAD of course). *Some people just use an average exchange rate for the whole year, which you can also get from the BoC. ^There's $200 of tax free gains allowed for pure currency transactions. This allows small gains to be ignored.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66b6d7651ba92fdc726761af5e89c6f9",
"text": "\"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \"\"cross-border tax harvesting\"\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af67ec00810b4ac3d36042b55309bf01",
"text": "- This is a simple solution because you don't have to monitor a person's trades over time, or even their frequency. Implementing this in the modern computer exchanges seems trivial to me. Asking an exchange to monitor each trader's trades to ensure no HFTs seems full of loopholes (ask a computer to execute HFTs across multiple trader IDs, for example), and I think is a distraction suggestion. - The reason that I think these taxes don't get implented is, as ChaosMotor correctly states, these taxes empower the government, which is something that a lot of political players (republicans, libertarians, and anarchists) don't want. I have always wondered what would happen if these fees were imposed by the government, implemented by the exchanges, but all money went to, say, the American Red Cross. I think that that would be a pretty good idea. - Finally, I also want to mention that the government plays a large role in markets already. For example, enforcing contracts, managing bankrupcties, and preventing fraud are all things that the government does to ensure that markets work well. This is another simple thing the the government can do to reduce market uncertainty and make our financial markets work better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c226136c6bf8cdfd3f364a99f6e953c",
"text": "In my opinion, I would: If the income is from this year, you can tax shelter $59,000 plus somewhere between $50,000 and $300,000 depending on age, in a 401(k) and defined benefit plan. This will take care of the current tax burden. Afterwards, set aside your remaining tax liability in cash. The after-tax money should be split into cash and the rest into assets. The split depends on your level of risk tolerance. Build a core portfolio using highly liquid and non-correlated ETFs (think SPY, TLT, QQQ, ect.). Once these core positions are locked in. Start lowering your basis by systematically selling a 1 standard deviation call in the ETF per 100 units of underlying. This will reduce your upside, extend your breakeven, and often yield steady income. Similarly, you can sell 1 standard deviation iron condors should the VIX be high enough. Point is, you have the money to deploy a professional-type, systematic strategy that is non-correlated, and income generating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e58a8128222084751b0288d74167d85e",
"text": "In general you must charge HST on and after July 1, 2010. However, in the case of delivered sales, you must charge HST if the transfer of goods will happen on or after July 1,2010. Example: A person comes into my hypothetical store on June 29, 2010 and buys a couch. They opt to have it delivered by my truck on July 2, 2010. I should charge HST on this purchase, not GST/PST. References:",
"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": "b1545f1e6444530ee97aba7c5049425e",
"text": "If peak oil is a concern, hedge against the effects of high oil prices. Reduce your dependence on the gas pump by moving closer to the places you normally drive, or adjust your lifestyle so that you need less. Buy things now that depend on fossil fuels (there's a long list). If instability is a concern, invest in a place where the chance of instability is less. If a freak event is a concern, think through what the consequences would be, and hedge accordingly. Etc. Etc.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9c01d800d27b472c3bc08d3613937e0b
|
Do the tax consequences make it worth it for me to hold ESPP stock?
|
[
{
"docid": "c5578afe7b8b8fea73e4f1a44aea7c7e",
"text": "To try to answer the three explicit questions: Every share of stock is treated proportionately: each share is assigned the same dollar amount of investment (1/176th part of the contribution in the example), and has the same discount amount (15% of $20 or $25, depending on when you sell, usually). So if you immediately sell 120 shares at $25, you have taxable income on the gain for those shares (120*($25-$17)). Either selling immediately or holding for the long term period (12-18 mo) can be advantageous, just in different ways. Selling immediately avoids a risk of a decline in the price of the stock, and allows you to invest elsewhere and earn income on the proceeds for the next 12-18 months that you would not otherwise have had. The downside is that all of your gain ($25-$17 per share) is taxed as ordinary income. Holding for the full period is advantageous in that only the discount (15% of $20 or $25) will be taxed as ordinary income and the rest of the gain (sell price minus $20 or $25) will be taxed at long-term capital gain tax rates, which generally are lower than ordinary rates (all taxes are due in the year you do sell). The catch is you will sell at different price, higher or lower, and thus have a risk of loss (or gain). You will never be (Federally) double taxed in any scenario. The $3000 you put in will not be taxed after all is sold, as it is a return of your capital investment. All money you receive in excess of the $3000 will be taxed, in all scenarios, just potentially at different rates, ordinary or capital gain. (All this ignores AMT considerations, which you likely are not subject to.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f82af4d38eca444773bd68289feb1710",
"text": "I think people in general tend to unnecessarily over-complicate this issue. Here's what I think you should do in any situation like this: First and foremost, put all tax considerations aside and decide whether it makes sense to sell the stock now or hold on to it for the long term based on its merits as an investment. Tax considerations have absolutely nothing to do with whether the stock is a good investment. If you consider all non-tax factors and decide to hold on to it for the long term, then you can use the tax considerations as a very minor input to how long you should hold it - in other words, don't set your time horizon to 17.5 months if waiting another 2 weeks gives you better tax treatment. You're going to pay taxes on your gains no matter what. The only difference is whether you pay capital gains tax or income tax. Granted, the income tax rate is higher, but wouldn't it suck if you pay a LOT less tax only because you have a LOT less value in your stock? So to answer your question - I would say, absolutely not, tax consequences do not make it worthwhile to hold on to your ESPP shares. If you decide to hold on to your ESPP for other reasons (and they better be good ones to put that much free profit at risk), only then should you look at the tax consequences to help fine-tune your strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f46e0a3669d0732b765f5b13b110c0a3",
"text": "Your gain is $1408. The difference between 32% of your gain and 15% of your gain is $236.36 or $1.60 per share. If you sell now, you have $3957.44 after taxes. Forget about the ESPP for a moment. Are you be willing to wager $4000 on the proposition that your company's stock price won't go down more than $1.60 or so over the next 18 months? I've never felt it was worth it. Also, I never thought it made much sense to own any of my employer's stock. If their business does poorly, I'd prefer not to have both my job and my money at risk. If you sell now: Now assuming you hold for 18 months, pay 15% capital gains tax, and the stock price drops by $1.60 to $23.40:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b5dca99a685e3a33d3939c04c8107c93",
"text": "From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "686c79bee148b44dfd8d5893636b200c",
"text": "Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b78c0943dfcaac7e33e2f04c6f1e823",
"text": "I have an ESPP with E*Trade; you can transfer stock like that via a physical (paper) asset-transfer form. Look for one of those, and if you can't find it, call your brokerage (or email / whatever). You own the shares, so you can generally do what you want with them. Just be very careful about recording all the purchase and transfer information so that you can deal properly with the taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab4e8f980720ba23c8a6f3b80ca1a3cf",
"text": "Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1fd26ee58a9ba5d07e635ce82827285",
"text": "Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a29275f2331ec196b0117951cdf72f42",
"text": "Short answer is to put the max 15% contribution into your ESPP. Long answer is that since you want to be saving as much as you can anyway, this is a great way to force you to do it, and pick up at least a 15% return every six months (or however often your plan makes a purchase). I say at least because sometimes an ESPP will give you the lower of the beginning or end period stock price, and then a 15% discount off of that (but check the details of your plan). If you feel like your company's stock is a good long term investment, then hold onto the shares when purchased. Otherwise sell as soon as you get them, and bank that 15% return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c94a7f3016116935b6862bfce97bfdeb",
"text": "For ESPP, the discount that you get is taxed as ordinary income. Capital gains is taxed at the appropriate rate, which is different based on how long you hold it. So, yes, if the stock is going up,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac92b9bf00a4d1b18d5a4e79b41b059e",
"text": "Typically, the discount is taxable at sale time But what about taxes? When the company buys the shares for you, you do not owe any taxes. You are exercising your rights under the ESPP. You have bought some stock. So far so good. When you sell the stock, the discount that you received when you bought the stock is generally considered additional compensation to you, so you have to pay taxes on it as regular income. Source: Turbotax. Second source. Your pretax rate of return would be: 17% (100/85) In your scenario where the stock price is fixed at $100. Your tax rate would be your marginal rate. If the stock stayed at 100, you would still be taxed as income on $15/share (the discount) and would receive no benefit for holding the stock one year. Assuming you are in the 25% tax bracket, your after tax rate of return would be 13% ((15*.75)+85)/85)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac",
"text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87b1311ea060117cc2ce42d5a0981452",
"text": "Purchasing stock doesn't affect your immediate taxes any more than purchasing anything else, unless you purchase it through a traditional 401k or some other pre-tax vehicle. Selling stock has tax effects; that's when you have a gain or loss to report.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af172ae2d3b33181efe360010bd142d9",
"text": "No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ccf4fabeb824d7b3def25056a99e2f2",
"text": "You also need to remember that stock options usually become valueless if not exercised while an employee of the company. So if there is any chance that you will leave the company before an IPO, the effective value of the stock options is zero. That is the safest and least risky valuation of the stock options. With a Google or Facebook, stock options can be exercised and immediately sold, as they are publicly traded. In fact, they may give stock grants where you sell part of the grant to pay tax withholding. You can then sell the remainder of the grant for money at any time, even after you leave the company. You only need the option/grant to vest to take advantage of it. Valuing these at face value (current stock price) makes sense. That's at least a reasonable guess of future value. If you are absolutely sure that you will stay with the company until the IPO, then valuing the stock based on earnings can make sense. A ten million dollar profit can justify a hundred million dollar IPO market capitalization easily. Divide that by the number of shares outstanding and multiply by how many you get. If anything, that gives you a conservative estimate. I would still favor the big company offers though. As I said, they are immediately tradeable while this offer is effectively contingent on the IPO. If you leave before then, you get nothing. If they delay the IPO, you're stuck. You can't leave the company until then without sacrificing that portion of your compensation. That seems a big commitment to make.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e302eab9753e7ec9c3d02022d8967f7",
"text": "Did you read what I wrote? I sold some stock for a gain, that's a taxable event. Are you trying to say I just shouldn't have sold it? Do you understand investing at all? And the second point is moot, I still had to pay the tax, having write offs doesn't change the fact that my taxes were higher(more importantly that they would have been much higher if I couldn't take advantage of capital gains.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a74565edf0db6d12f62a512085a4056",
"text": "There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28736c47950db9528b1fd9ac554aa8c6",
"text": "If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
64cd2b5525a8ad98b1c5ea19298bcc75
|
How does sales tax holiday change tax?
|
[
{
"docid": "aedde12539f170b9c2e71c2a448534c4",
"text": "I believe you are confusing sales tax with income tax. The tax holidays in the US are only for sales tax. Consumers purchasing certain goods during the tax holiday do not have to pay sales tax like they normally would. Effectively the price is slightly lower during those days with the purpose of giving people an extra reason to shop at that time. During the tax holiday the stores make the exact same profit that they normally do, but they may experience a bump in sales simply because more people will shop during that time. Income tax for both consumers and the businesses is not affected by this. Although New York state was the first state to implement a tax holiday 20 years ago, they no longer have one today, though they do have certain goods which have a lower tax rate year round.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4cba67a2629abaf836aa530c486cc7fd",
"text": "Timing differences would still all come out in the wash. Might reduce it one year but over a few years it's essentially the same. It's becoming harder to create situations where big timing differences can apply. And generally (although not in every case) companies are seeing the bad press associated with not paying taxes and are being relatively less aggressive than in the past. There's a lot too it but I get annoyed by people saying companies only make donations to avoid tax. I've posted on it before and it's a silly view.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "385e30d9ee9779e1b239faf925b8d5aa",
"text": "I owned a restaurant for over 5 years. Sales tax was only collected on POST discount price, though every state that collects sales tax may have different laws regarding collection. For example, when a customer used a gift certificate, that did NOT reduce the amount that tax was collected on. Why? Because the restaurant at some point or another collected the full amount of the bill.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b958ecddb6579a5edb96c07558272915",
"text": "\"In most jurisdictions, both the goods (raw materials) and the service (class) are being \"\"sold\"\" to the customer, who is the end user and thus the sale is subject to sales tax. So, when your friend charges for the class, that $100 is subject to all applicable sales taxes for the jurisdiction and all parent jurisdictions (usually city, county and state). The teacher should not have to pay sales tax when they buy the flowers from the wholesaler; most jurisdictions charge sales tax on end-user purchases only. However, they are required to have some proof of sales tax exemption for the purchase, which normally comes part and parcel with the DBA or other business entity registration paperwork in most cities/states. Wholesalers deal with non-end-user sales (exempt from sales tax) all the time, but your average Michael's or Hobby Lobby may not be able to deal with this and may have to charge your friend the sales tax at POS. Depending on the jurisdiction, if this happens, your friend may be able to reduce the amount the customer is paying that is subject to sales tax by the pre-tax value of the materials the customer has paid for, which your friend already paid the tax on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b10bdd6414d8ba0ada832b28cc52e57a",
"text": "\"Don't worry about it. The State doesn't care about rounding error. All you need to do is say \"\"We charge our prices with tax included\"\" - you know, like carnivals and movie theaters. Then follow the procedures your state specifies for computing reportable tax. Quite likely it wants your pre-tax sales total for the reporting period. To get that, total up your gross sales that you collected, and divide by (1 + tax rate). Just like DJClayworth says, except do it on total sales instead of per-item. If you need to do the split per-transaction for Quickbooks or something, that's annoying. What Quickbooks says will be pennies off the method I describe above. The state don't care as long as it's just pennies, or in their favor.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5ee1e17e8e4b943fe7322831dec28f6",
"text": "\"Imagine two restaurants. One has prices 15% higher than the other, and the owner pays this 15% to his wait staff in the form of higher wages. The other has lower prices, but the average customer gifts 15% to their waiter. Clearly, in the first restaurant, the 15% the wait staff receives is taxable income. It is traditional salary. What legitimate, economic justification is their for treating the second restaurant any differently? Imagine a grocery store in a small town that offered long-time customers a \"\"pay nothing\"\" option but made it clear that they'd be subject to social ostracism and no longer welcome in the store if they didn't gift 85% of the usual cost of the items. The customers would save on sales tax and the grocer would argue that all that money was gifts, not income. Of course this doesn't work. The IRS, and the laws, don't care very much about what you call things. They care about the underlying economic reality. If the money was part of the payment for the services rendered, regardless of how it was delivered, what the parties called it, or whether the obligation to pay was legal or social, it's still a payment for the service and it's still taxable. You would have to be able to argue to the IRS that it really was a gift and wasn't any form of payment for the service received. Otherwise, it's just a scheme to evade taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "974ed9da6e3447681972ae43b6e9b83a",
"text": "You should total the items first, to get $3.00, then add the tax, then round up/down accordingly. Your two examples above don't offer this option, even though your second example arrives at the same result. In your first example, a number of items taxed one at a time might result in many .006 results which would round to .01. A long enough list of items would result in an error of many cents depending how many items there are. Totaling first then applying tax results in your saving .004 or losing .005 cents maximum due to rounding. See A Guide to Sales and Use Tax which is a document put out by the Massachusetts Dept of Revenue. In the chart for tax, it shows that $1.09 is taxed at five cents, but at 5%, it would be 5.45. So, at least for this state, I believe I correctly stated the rounding process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45977881e999a289d4012ce8bf8f3a48",
"text": "This would be no different than asking if you can live in one state and earn a paycheck, then move to another state with a lower tax rate before your tax bill is due so you can save on your taxes for that income. Answer -- No The tax on lottery winnings is based on the state where the lottery was held, because for legal purposes that's where the winnings are considered to have been earned for taxation purposes. Also, changing where you live after earning money does not change your tax liability at all. You still owe the state where the money was earned the tax that is due. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e6d4ae7ba031828528173329e1afabc",
"text": "Maybe you missed this part >by going into a local retailer and forcing them to compete with something they cannot realistically compete against while turning any kind of a reasonable profit. There won't be any local taxes to pay if the local business isn't around to sell anything to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac92b9bf00a4d1b18d5a4e79b41b059e",
"text": "Typically, the discount is taxable at sale time But what about taxes? When the company buys the shares for you, you do not owe any taxes. You are exercising your rights under the ESPP. You have bought some stock. So far so good. When you sell the stock, the discount that you received when you bought the stock is generally considered additional compensation to you, so you have to pay taxes on it as regular income. Source: Turbotax. Second source. Your pretax rate of return would be: 17% (100/85) In your scenario where the stock price is fixed at $100. Your tax rate would be your marginal rate. If the stock stayed at 100, you would still be taxed as income on $15/share (the discount) and would receive no benefit for holding the stock one year. Assuming you are in the 25% tax bracket, your after tax rate of return would be 13% ((15*.75)+85)/85)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f95941137866de1af94e29b0e9e67cc4",
"text": "I believe its relevant, because, depending on what you believe your view of what level of taxation is acceptable, if any, is affected. Someone who believes in big govt will weigh the impact on individuals take home pay much less than someone who doesn't believe in big govt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df5c69cdb987aaf96dd169e20e0dfd06",
"text": "All States have property tax, all States except 4 have sales tax, and business tax is federal but there are local costs of doing business such as various state required insurances and license and payroll taxes and unemployment insurance for the state etc. What I was talking about is personal income tax there are 2 kinds federal that everyone pays then all the states except those I listed take another 4 or 5% give or take which stays in the state instead of being sent off to the feeding government. From a business perspective if the going rate for paying your employees based on their role was say 100k annually. The employees take home pay would be taxed 5k in a state with income tax. That would mean Amazon would need to offer 5k more pay for an equal job vs an employer in another state. This is just one factor a company this huge would consider when moving.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "9185b59e583e909cad0d185ab8c724d4",
"text": "You cannot deduct anything. Since you're actually moving, your tax home will move with you. You can only deduct the moving expenses (actual moving - packing, shipping, and hotels while you drive yourself there).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a51c9ca986fa7b362dce41bd2e9c1e30",
"text": "The HST is a sales tax levied on most goods and services. It is important to realize that in both BC and Ontario, the new HST does not (in most cases) result in an increase in sales tax paid. For example, in Ontario the PST is 8% and when combined with the GST the sales tax is 13%. With the HST, the GST and PST are replaced by a single HST of 13% so the tax bill does not change. Some services that were previously not subject to PST (such as mutual fund service fees and labour) will now be subject to the HST. So some things will increase. Over time, this should not have a material impact on the consumer due to the way businesses remit GST/HST.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73aca1991f9dc2b354a2cecec26cd702",
"text": "In 2012, the standard deduction is $5950 for a single person. Let's assume you are very charitable, and by coincidence you donate exactly $5950 to charity. Everything that falls under itemized deductions would then be deductible. So, if your property tax is $6000, in your example - Other adjustments come into play, including an exemption of $3850, I am just showing the effect of the property tax. The bottom line is that deductions come off income, not off your tax bill. The saving from a deduction is $$ x your tax bracket.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
def4d636709889a8b860c2d65dbf6e1d
|
How can one go short in Uber?
|
[
{
"docid": "242b9720ed53efad88c9fbaf61a8fe93",
"text": "The answer to this question is related to another question: How would I invest in Uber? Given that Uber is a privately-held company, the average investor cannot directly buy stock. However, there are some indirect methods that you can use to invest in Uber, and as a result, it is also possible to indirectly short Uber. One method is to invest in (or short) companies that invest in Uber. Alphabet/Google (GOOG) owns some, as well as Microsoft (MSFT), Toyota (ADR), and other companies. Theoretically, you could short these companies, as a hit to Uber would be bad for those companies. Another method would be to look at Uber's competitors. Think about what companies would do well if Uber went under. Lyft, perhaps, although it is so similar to Uber that if one has trouble, the other may as well. Perhaps instead you might invest in a traditional taxi company, or a company that provides services to taxi companies, such as Medallion Financial Corporation (MFIN). Keep in mind that either investing or shorting any of these is not really the same as investing/shorting Uber. It provides you some exposure in Uber, but your investment is also affected by many other things that have nothing to do with Uber. For more information, see the Investopedia article Ways to Invest in Uber before It Goes Public. For the record, I don't recommend that you do any of this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85e7e5ab0f2b5157a9fe6f4bbf32e8c8",
"text": "\"Pay someone a fee to borrow their private Uber shares, then sell those private shares to someone else, then find someone else you can buy their private shares from for less than the net of the proceeds you made selling the borrowed shares you sold plus the fees you've paid to the first person and return your newly purchased shares back to the person you initially borrowed the shares from. On a serious note, Uber is private; there is no liquid public market for the shares so there is no mechanism to short the company. The valuations you see might not even be legitimate because the company's financials are not public. You could try to short a proxy for Uber but to my knowledge there is no public \"\"rideshare\"\"/taxi service business similar enough to Uber to be a reasonably legitimate proxy.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "911335a6493fd702b05dc26f1cf207fa",
"text": ">Yes. The lack of insight and superficial treatment of the subject... I am sure if you were a bit more specific in your first post it would have been more helpful. That remark left me wondering if you were attacking the author. Anyway I think he made a few points clear though I felt the article missed a vital insight: *Uber doesn't have a sustainable competitive advantage in the long run.* They have been competing on price to beat Lyft that's why they had to resort to this cheap tactic. The illegal business model is a mere symptom.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f9aaf73ce130f4bfefc2fa22d8b2134",
"text": "While I am not an advocate of shorting anything (unlimited downside, capped upside), you can:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85d58a18e68588f99c66ec5f8a8d3e2f",
"text": "Adding to the answers above, there is another source of risk: if one of the companies you are short receives a bid to be purchased by another company, the price will most probably rocket...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f14ee281def5cf70e5d2c1db7e5e69c",
"text": "-Most investors would be insulated against losses through diversified portfolios. -Uber's staff would lose their stock options, and along with drivers, would face unemployment. -Other services would grow to meet consumer demands. I don't mean to be rude, but these answers are so obvious, this article is one step above clickbait.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7edac9f8bfebc33c1fc885d2cac731e",
"text": "\"Diversify into leveraged short/bear ETFs and then you can quit your job and yell at your boss \"\"F you I'm short your house!\"\" edit: this is a quote from Greg Lippmann and mentioned in the book \"\"The Big Short\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09e1175420f8c078193d1f53c0e2d9ca",
"text": "\"As ChrisInEdmonton describes, shorting has an asymmetric risk/reward ratio. And put options have a time cost, if you think the market is overvalued and buy lots of puts, but they expire before the market finally corrects, you can lose your entire investment. Betting on market timing of any kind is extremely difficult to do, some would argue it's impossible. \"\"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent\"\" is a favorite wall street trader saying. Instead of playing a game that's difficult to win, the better option is to play one you can win. That's to learn how to value individual investments well and accumulate cash until you can find investments that are under-valued to invest in. The best way to learn to value investments is to read Graham and Buffett. \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a good starting point, and you can read all of Buffett's investor letters for the last 30 years + for free on the Berkshire Hathaway web site. Finally the textbook on valuing stocks and other investments is \"\"Securities Analysis\"\" the 6th edition is only version to get, it was updated with Buffett and other leading value investors oversight. A basic overview of valuing investments is that every investment has an \"\"intrinsic value\"\" consisting of it's future cash flows, discounted for the time it takes to receive them. The skill is being able to estimate how likely those cash flows are to happen. a) Is it a good business? Does it have a moat, i.e. barriers that make it hard for competitors to duplicate it? b) Will management invest or distribute those cash flows wisely? Then your strategy is to not even worry about the market, spend your time looking at individual stocks and investments and wait until some come along that's well undervalued. That may be during a market correction, or it may be tomorrow. And it's not just good enough to intelligently value your investments, you also have to have psychological fortitude to not panic and to think for yourself. Buffett describes it best. Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his. Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you. But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game. Lastly learning to value investments isn't just useful in the stock market, they are applicable to investing in any investment such as bonds, real estate, and even buying your home or running a business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57fbd8fd6a022e1caa2cc780ff82bf5d",
"text": "If the rules are unfair,stupid and causing more harm than good.... I'd argue the opposite. Taxi companies regulated themselves into a protected business with no competition and no chance of competition. This hinders customers and puts all the power into the hands of the cab companies. I'm not saying Uber is in the right with everything, but your not gonna see an ounce of sympathy from Me towards the cab companies and the cities that let that shit happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f61a483f3abd7167d55892db707d3af",
"text": "The taxi industry operates differently in every jurisdiction. I live in Vancouver BC and the taxi business here is archaic (think transportation before deregulation) so I would welcome Uber as an alternative. There is a reason a license to operate a cab in Vancouver is worth $500,000+ each. Monopolies, bitch.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c2c9c130645d49832b4a83c7a1b772d",
"text": "I don't know if vanilla beans are traded on any organized exchange, and if they are, it's probably extremely obscure and very hard to access without having both of a lot of money and in-country connections. Edit: no, they're not. So there is no real way to short them. https://www.ft.com/content/e0e2fc16-28db-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c?mhq5j=e2",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fac14afc592b93b8ce9f478f10e9464",
"text": "I really appreciate the long response! You clearly have more knowledge than me in regards to the finance end of the business. That said, is there so much money/debt tied up in taxi licenses and medallions that it would create even a mini financial market crash? If so, how would we (investors) profit from the situation?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b046a4c030911bee82874c63f20729e7",
"text": "\"> They trick people into rigged contracts, which requires paying uber even if you quit. So your time spent making money at another job belongs to uber. Can you link me to some info on this? This is bizarre. >What makes it \"\"sort of\"\" slavery is the foolishness of entering the contract. lol\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9ae0e0a8e5f5356c6f2c12e76530002",
"text": "\"There are multiple problems with your claim. Firstly, in some places Uber and Lyft *are* regulated. In California, they are regulated as [Transportation Network Companies](http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/TNC/TNC_Licenses_Issued.htm). Secondly, I don't think this particular practice (calling in fake rides) is something that is prohibited by regulations, or at least enforced, for existing industries like taxis and livery cars. I have heard anecdotes that taxi companies routinely do the same thing, and that this is why taxis often don't show up if you call and request one. I think your attribution of this practice to \"\"unregulated capitalism\"\" is misguided.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f08ece9b46dd5e98c99a0bf2c47f770a",
"text": "Yeah, too subjective of a question I shorted BP last year during the deep water crisis, using a leveraged account 20 times larger than the amount of cash I actually had, instantly profitable. I was long Freddie Mac in March 2009 and that took several months to turn to move and turned a 100% gain I've flipped penny stocks trading at .0001 cents, bought a few million shares and sold them at .0002 cents. Sometimes instantly, sometimes over several months because they were illiquid I'm primarily a derivatives trader right now, which I did not know about or understand less than a year ago. Dont have crazy targets, that how you will blow up your account. Have meticulously calculated plans. Also you need to determine what kind of trader you are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d176e6876f0d0cb1f7de9fffd323ed2",
"text": "I don't have a smartphone, so when I was in San Francisco, I used a cab driver. He was really friendly, took me to where I needed to go and I called him back the next day to take me to the airport. He said that he was going to protest at the state capital against Uber with some of this fellow drivers. He said that they didn't require any sort of driving tests or insurance, and that made them extremely unsafe and unfair. I'm all for disruptive business models, but I'm really unsure what separates these people from traditional taxi companies other than having a cool app. They may live and die with regulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef18299621646b2cd361cf1313bf5a04",
"text": "> A short position also loses money if the stock just appreciates more slowly than the broader market, which is one way an overvaluation can correct itself. Is there a derivative based on the literal second derivative (acceleration) of the stock price? If so, you'd be able to short those, yes?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
92b4e65d8ae68ab85bc24d5db4aeea25
|
How can I improve my auto insurance score?
|
[
{
"docid": "5ab48c779ae9997d4e92f5d4326177f0",
"text": "Move to a small town in an insurance friendly state. - Certian states like Florida are considered high risk for doing business for insurance companies. Get a (relatively)new midsize sedan in white, tan, or brown. These colors are the least likely to get stolen and the modern midsized sedan is considered the safest vehicles to drive. Drive less than 100 miles a month - The less you drive the less likely you are to be involved in an accident Go 9 years with no claims, tickets, or late payments and maintain a valid drivers license and Insurance. Drivers who go for long periods with out incident are more likely to be safe drivers. Have an income in upper middle class. Drivers in this bracket tend to be statistically safer drivers and are the least likely to be involved in fraud.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab8ad3914e9ced9d72270d68dca2c20f",
"text": "Auto Insurance score is in no way related to your driving habits, instead it is based on your credit usage. You are often punished for having more than one or two hard inquires in a year and they also frown upon having many lines of credit even though that helps your credit utilization.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f8d360bbfa515fcd8bcf8cda182b071",
"text": "As a recent college grad who switched to his own car insurance, many of the things I did myself are reflected here. The #1 thing I did was find out what coverages I had, what coverages some friends of mine had (car enthusiasts mostly - they're the most informed on this stuff), and then figured out what kind of coverages I wanted. From there, I went around getting quotes from anyone and everyone and eventually built out a sizeable spreadsheet that made it obvious which company was going to offer me the best rate at a given coverage level. Something else to remember - not all insurance companies look at past accidents and violations (speeding, etc) the same. In my search, I found some have a 3-year scope on accidents and violations, while others were as much as 5 years. So, if your driving record isn't a shining example (mine isn't perfect), you could potentially save money by considering insurance through a company that will see fewer violations/incidents than another because of the size of their scope. I ended up saving $25/mo by choosing a company that had a 3-year scope, which was on the cusp of when my last violation/incident occurred. Insurance companies will also give out discounts for younger drivers based on GPA average. If you have kids and they maintain a high GPA, you might be able to get a discount there. Not all companies offer it, so if they do it's worth finding out how much it is",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fde7f24cd4ccccf7f3fbe82607eb1e79",
"text": "Answer all of their questions honestly and as accurately as you can, but don't stress too much about it. If you don't know the answer to something, ask the insurance agent what it means; that's what they're there for. (If you're doing this online, email the support, or the 'live chat' feature many of them have. Or, don't do it online, if you feel better having an agent in person; nowadays, most of the major insurers are similar on price so it's not a massive savings to skip the agent.) As far as whether it's important to pick a specific insurer - that's really your call. Read reviews, understanding that folks with bad experiences are more likely to write reviews than the 90% of folks who get no benefit from homeowner's insurance. You need to make the decision as to how important reputation and ease of claims process is versus price. That's why there are multiple insurers, after all - you can decide how important it is to you. It sounds like you would prefer a simpler claims process, so perhaps you should go with someone who is known for an easier claims process (understanding that no insurer is always going to agree with every claimant 100%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf72b9016862b87ac26ec47661af81e8",
"text": "If you're wealthy why do you think they wouldn't sue you for the money you owed?? And, as sunk818 says, credit scores can influence insurance costs. While you could self-insure your home you generally can't self-insure when it comes to liability coverage on a car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd359957c211621d936ff617b49d198a",
"text": "Agree with the comment, 760 is a good score. The average score is less than 700 and average score for your age group is even lower. (Source: https://www.creditkarma.com/trends/age) Just keep paying your credit card bills on time. You could also ask for increases in your credit limits on your existing credit cards, which may increase your score, but could decrease it in the short term depending on how your credit card company looks at your credit history in the process. (Source: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2014/06/27/3-ways-to-increase-your-credit-card-spending-limit)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edbaae5bb9235c484810f90b9920dd85",
"text": "Pay it off. If you do so, you have the liberty to drop or reduce a portion of your collision auto insurance coverage (keeping uninsured motorist). This could potentially save you a lot more than 20 bucks over the next six months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07f3d7d55faa849cd46667f837f89792",
"text": "First, you need to be aware that the credit score reported by Mint is Equifax Credit Score. Equifax Credit Score, like FICO, Vantagescore, and others, is based on a proprietary formula that is not publicly available. Every score is calculated with a different formula, and can vary from each other widely. Lenders almost exclusively only use FICO scores, so the score number you have is likely different than the score lenders will use. Second, understand that the advice you see from places like Mint and Credit Karma will almost always tell you that you don't have enough credit card accounts. The reason for this is that they make their money by referring customers to credit card applications. They have a financial interest in telling you that you need more credit cards. Finally, realize that credit score is just a number, and is only useful for a limited number of things. Higher is better to a point, and after that, you get no benefit from increasing your score. My advice to you is this: Don't stress out about your credit score, especially a free score reported by Credit Karma or Mint. If you really have a desire to find out your score, you can pay FICO to get your actual score, but it's not cheap. You can also sometimes get your FICO score by applying for a loan and asking the lender. I last saw my FICO scores (there were three, one from each credit bureau) when I applied for a mortgage a couple of years ago, and the mortgage rep gave them to me for free. But honestly, knowing your score doesn't do much for you, as the best way to increase it is to simply make your payments on time and wait. Don't give in to bad conventional advice from places that are funded by the financial services industry. The thing that makes your credit score go up is a long history of paying your bills on time. Despite what you commonly read about credit scores, I'm not convinced that you can radically boost your scores by having lots of open credit card accounts. At the time I applied for my last mortgage, I only had 2 open credit cards (still true), and the oldest open account was about 1.5 years old. The average of my 3 scores was just over 800. But I've been paying my bills on time for at least 20 years now. Only get credit cards that you actually want, and close the ones you don't want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "718a647db098e2f1212a0d763e4bc22c",
"text": "\"Here's what you do without, on the negative side, just for balance: A bill: When I last had comprehensive insurance, it cost something like 3-4% of the value of the car per annum. (Obviously ymmv enormously but I think that's somewhere near the middle of the range and I'm not especially risky.) So, compared to the total depreciation and running costs of the car, it's actually fairly substantial. Over the say 10 years I might keep that car, it adds up to a fair slice of what it will take to buy a replacement. Financial crisis costs: I don't know about you, but my insurance went up something like 30% in recent years, despite the value-insured and the risk going down, said by the insurer to be due to market turmoil. So, at least hundreds of dollars is just kind of frictional loss, and I'd rather not pay it. Wrangling with the insurer: if you have insurance and a loss, you have to persuade them to pay out, perhaps document the original conditions or the fault, perhaps argue about whether their payment is fair. I've done this for small (non-automotive) claims, and it added up to more hassle than the incident itself. Obviously all insurers will claim they're friendly to deal with but until you actually have a big claim you never know. Moral hazard: I know I'm solely responsible for not having my car crashed or stolen. Somehow that just feels better. Free riders: I've seen people \"\"fudge\"\" their insurance claims so that things that shouldn't have been covered were claimed to be. You might have too. Buy insurance and you're paying for them. Choice: Insurers are typically going to make the decision for you about whether a claim is repairable or not, and in my experience are reluctant or refuse to just give you the cash amount of the claim. (See also, moral hazard.) Do it yourself and you can choose whether to live with it, make a smaller or larger repair, or replace the whole vehicle with a second hand one or a brand new one, or indeed perhaps do without a vehicle. A distraction: Hopefully by the time you've been working for a while, a vehicle is not a really large fraction of your net worth. If you lose 10% of your net worth it's not really nice but - well, you could easily have lost that off the value of your house or your retirement portfolio in recent years. What you actually need to insure is genuinely serious risks that would seriously change your life if they were lost, such as your ability to work. For about the same cost as insuring a $x car, you can insure against $x income every year for the rest of your life, and I think it's far more important. If I have a write-off accident but walk away I'll be perfectly happy. And, obviously, liability insurance is important, because being hit for $millions of liabilities could also have a serious impact. Coverage for mechanical failures: If your 8yo car needs a new transmission, insurance isn't going to help, yet it may cost more than the typical minor collision. Save the money yourself and you can manage those costs out of the same bucket. Flexibility: If you save up to replace your car, but some other crisis occurs, you can choose to put the money towards that. If you have car insurance but you have a family medical thing it's no help. I think the bottom line is: insure against costs you couldn't cope with by yourself. There are people who need a car but can just barely afford it, but if you're fortunate enough not to be in that case you don't really need comprehensive insurance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b303d2f98047b406c05fdfe635ca779c",
"text": "\"There's not a single answer here, as the premium you pay for car insurance depends on multiple factors, including (but not limited to): All these factors contribute to the likelihood of getting into an accident, and the expected damage from an accident. So just having an accident and making a claim will likely raise your premium (all else being equal), but whether or not it will be cheaper in the long run depends (obviously) on how much your premium goes up, which cannot determined without all of the facts. Your agent could tell you how much it would go up, but even making such an inquiry would likely be noted on your insurance record, and may cause your premium to go up (although probably not by as much). However, the point of insurance is to reduce the out-of-pocket expenses from future accidents, so the question to ask is: How likely am I to have another accident, and if I do, can I pay cash for it or will I need to offset some cost with an insurance claim. Do you risk making a claim and having your rates go up by more than $700 over the next 3-4 years (the rough time it takes for a \"\"surcharge\"\" to expire)? Or do you just pay for the repair out-of-pocket and keep your premiums lower?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38710ae492b0a4cd66cd64cc20d6c739",
"text": "The best thing you can do is shop around, and tell your current company that you're shopping. I had been with GEICO for years and recently discovered (while shopping for renter's insurance) that AllState offered the same coverage for a few hundred dollars less. When I called GEICO to cancel, they offered me an additional discount (for being a member of a credit union) that I hadn't received before. I still switched, but was sad that I hadn't been getting that extra discount just because I never asked if there were other discounts I might qualify for. This article by ChristianPF talks about some changes you can make to reduce auto insurance costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255ca961ae0f95b0d52c79a49f0c9953",
"text": "Buy a modest vehicle with a manageable payment. Keep the payment low enough ($200-300/month) to keep your DTI (Debt-To-Income) ratio clear. The short-term ding to your credit for new credit should disappear in 3-6 months (your time horizon). Having a mix of credit is part of the credit scoring model, so having an installment loan is not a bad thing. Relax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf6049ea982c6dc34eeb8fa8d6e68ac1",
"text": "Some proportion of the costs of a policy have little to no relationship to miles driven. Think of costs of underwriting, and more especially sales/marketing/client acquisition costs (auto insurance isn't in the same league as non-term life insurance (where the commissions and other selling expenses typically exceed the first year's worth of premiums), but the funny TV ads and/or agent commissions aren't free), as well as general business overhead. Also, as noted by quid, some proportion of claim risk isn't correlated to distance covered (think theft, flood, fire, etc.). There are also differences in the miles that are likely to be driven by a non-commercial/vehicle-for-hire driver who puts 25k miles a year vs. one who puts 7k per year. The former is generally going to be doing more driving at higher speeds on less-congested freeways while the latter will be doing more of their driving on crowded urban roads. The former pattern generally has a lower expected value of claims both due to having fewer cars per road-mile, fewer intersections and driveways, and also having any given collision be more likely to result in a fatality (paralysis or other lifetime disability claims are generally going to exceed what the insurer would pay out on a fatality).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95587211afe5e5b916902cb7425ad3eb",
"text": "One that isn't typically mentioned: move. Rates are often higher in certain zip codes where there are more accidents and/or thefts. I cut my insurance nearly in half by moving. If you're looking at moving anyway, it's worth considering.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab252f1dce22980b61eddfe374b686c3",
"text": "\"> Let's just say the insurance industry knows a lot more about underwriting than you do. I'm sorry, but that is a meaningless statement. I work in insurance (first as a consultant, before 'retiring' to work in insurance distribution a few years ago), and I know that our industry frequently uses flawed or outdated methodologies due to the simple fact that insurance companies are very conservative and *very* resistant to change when it comes to changes to their core business. Unless you can show a direct, negative impact on the bottom line caused by the currently used method, you are unlikely to make any changes at all. In this case, if the entire US car insurance industry is using the same flawed system, it won't affect a single company if they also stick to it. Until 1996, before the current system was introduced, insurance companies in Germany used to rate liability insurance for cars (almost) exclusively by engine power output. The industry had known that this method was fundamentally flawed since at least the late 1980s (comprehensive and partial coverage had been rated by the 'new' system for a few years at this point, which had also taken years to work out), but it took additional years of planning, negotiations and cooperation by the entire industry to change to the new system for liability. So please, do not ever assume that \"\"the insurance companies are the experts, they know what they are doing!\"\". It might very well be the case that they are stuck with flawed/outdated systems simply because there is no sufficiently strong impulse to change what they do. The current Tesla rate adjustment situation is a wonderful example of this - it apparantly took AAA *5 years* since the Model S first came out to realise that their initial estimate was wrong (it seems unlikely that the accident rate or repair costs have suddenly changed over the last year) and take appropriate actions. By late 2013, there were easily enough Teslas on the road (about 20,000) to get realiable data, yet nothing happened for nearly another 4 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13a0e39315b53b0fd86165869dc586b9",
"text": "The length of time you have established credit does improve your credit score in the long run. As long as you can avoid paying interest, you might see if you can get a card with cash back rewards. I have one from Citi that sends me a $50 check every so often when I have enough rewards built up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5ab01540a1290a9e69d02e45f3e1821",
"text": "\"I assume there is a large amount of competition. Ask yourself: \"\"What makes you better or different from other drivers?\"\" If you have an answer, then make it more obvious to customers. If you do not have an answer, then make yourself better or different from other drivers and let customers know. Example: In Chiang Mai, you can get delicious street food just about anywhere. How do you separate yourself in a sea of strong competitors? One lady started wearing a cowboy hat, it was different. People take notice and remember the hat. People only remember the 'cowboy hat lady.' Now you can type into Google \"\"cowboy hat lady\"\" and her food stand comes up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e5c075808444b3079a84d19def23ea",
"text": "\"There is an economic, a social and a psychological side to the decision whether to buy insurance or not, and if yes, which one. Economically, as you say already in your question, an insurance is on average a net loss for the insured. The key word here is \"\"average\"\". If you know that there are many cancer cases in your family buy health insurance by all means; it's a sound investment. If you are a reckless driver make sure you have extensive coverage on your liability insurance. But absent such extra risks: Independently of somebody's wealth insurance should be limited to covering catastrophic events. What is often overlooked is that the insurance by all means should really cover those catastrophic events. For example the car liability minimums in many states are not sufficient. The typical upper middle class person could probably pay the 15k/30k/10k required in Arizona with a loan on their house; but a really catastrophic accident is simply not covered and would totally ruin that person and their family. Insuring petty damage is a common mistake: economically speaking, all insurances should have deductibles which are as high as one could afford to pay without feeling too much pain. That \"\"pain\"\" qualification has an economical and a social aspect. Of course any risk which materialized is an economical damage of some kind; perhaps now I can't buy the PS4, or the diamond ring, or the car, or the house, or the island which had caught my eye. I could probably do all these things, just perhaps without some extras, even if I had paid for insurance; so if I don't want to live with the risk to lose that possibility I better buy insurance. Another economical aspect is that the money may not be available without selling assets, possibly on short notice and hence not for the best price. Then an insurance fee takes the role of paying for a permanent backup credit line (and should not be more expensive than that). The social aspect is that even events which wouldn't strictly ruin a person might still force them to, say, sell their Manhattan penthouse (no more parties!) or cancel their country club membership. That is a social pain which is probably to be avoided. Another socioeconomic aspect is that you may have a relationship to the person selling you the insurance. Perhaps he buys his car at your dealership? Perhaps he is your golf buddy? Then the insurance may be a good investment. It is only borderline bad to begin with; any benefits move the line into the profit zone. The psychological aspect is that an insurance buys peace of mind, and that often seems to be the most important benefit. A dart hits the flat screen? Hey, it was insured. Junior totals the Ferrari? Hey, it was insured. Even if the house burns down having fire insurance will be a consolation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8e4464e8bc952f66c12df6ea5ffc2b92
|
Why haven't there been personal finance apps or softwares that use regression modeling or A.I.?
|
[
{
"docid": "8fc28a44b9cc50da157af42d19bd0df4",
"text": "What would they be trying to predict? The value YNAB and Mint provide is objective truth about what you've spent. They can force you to think about the tradeoffs inherent in budgeting by showing that you've overspent one category, and making you decide where to find the money to cover it. They can call your attention to a credit card swipe that's larger than you intended, to a subscription you didn't intend to keep, etc. by just generally getting you to read and think about your transaction history and the sums of transactions per category and overall. Prediction doesn't really enter into it. One way to understand Mint's business model is as a service that collects training data for machine learning models that do try to predict things, such as how stock prices will move or whether users will click on certain ads.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "977f45171572bdcd9111d69d3c1ca028",
"text": "How would they make money from it? They sell you the software for $100 (US example; could as easily be 100 Euros or 10,000 Japanese Yen). You use it to make recommendations on your blog. Your blog becomes rich from advertising. They sold $100 worth of software. If they spent $1 million in labor developing it, they're way behind. Another problem is that the software would stop working and need adjusted periodically. This is easy to do on a server but annoying on a PC. And who pays for the adjustments? Put both those things together, and it's a lot easier to do on a server. Another advantage is that a server can get a better data feed as well. Pay a premium for the detailed information rather than relying on public sources. And people are used to renting server access where they expect to buy software once. Another issue is that they are unlikely to beat the market this way. Yes, AIs have done so. But that's the latest AI, constantly adjusted. This is going to be a previous generation AI. It's more likely to match the market. And we already have a way to match the market: an index fund. If someone had a brilliant AI, the best use would probably be to sell it to a fund manager. The fund manager could then use the AI to find opportunities for its existing investors. Note that a $10 billion fund with a 10% return that gives a .1% commission would be paying $1 million. And that has no marketing or packaging overhead. Think $10 billion is a lot? Fidelity has $2 trillion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bee74207a1a9bd6c2f5d260bd5668a70",
"text": "\"Consumer facing finance is heavily regulated. You are liable for the recommendations you make; if they are based on a black box you risk problems when sued. It is difficult to explain in a court of law why a neural network came to a particular conclusion. It is much easier to provide advice (models) in the \"\"educated counterparty\"\" market. Not only do institutional investors in general expect to pay for a quality advice (consumers in general expect to get online advice for free) but the legal implications are different.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ef506aaf7991f3030af9a786ba6f7094",
"text": "\"Aside from the fundamental points brought up in other answers (which is important), there are a number of choices when it comes to budgeting software. Software like this can help you organize fixed reoccurring costs (rent and phone) as well as variable costs (food and events). Mint is probably the most popular, but just search \"\"budgeting software\"\" to get an idea of what's out there. Some can also help you visualize your spending with reports and dashboards. Some help out with paying bills on a schedule (this may help avoiding late payments). Some even link up with your bank/credit card accounts.\"",
"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": "4c0eb9d6fadbe1fe4754c9d470eabf64",
"text": "well there are many papers on power spot price prediction, for example. It depends on what level of methodology you would like to use. Linear regression is one of the basic steps, then you can continue with more advanced options. I'm a phd student studying modelling the energy price (electricity, gas, oil) as stochastic process. Regarding to your questions: 1. mildly speaking, it's really hard, due to its random nature! (http://www.dataversity.net/is-there-such-a-thing-as-predictive-analytics/) 2. well, i would ask what kind of measure of success you mean? what level of predicted interval one could find successful enough? 3. would you like me to send you some of the math-based papers on? 4. as i know, the method is to fully capture all main characteristics of the price. If it's daily power price, then these are mean-reversion effect, high volatility, spike, seasonality (weekly, monthly, yearly). Would you tell me what kind of method you're using? Maybe we can discuss some shared ideas? Anna",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c54d44fcdbe6423086dfee7e9d614c5f",
"text": "\"Note that mutual funds' quarterly/annual reports usually have this number. I generally just let my home-accounting software project my future net worth; its numbers agree well enough with those I've gotten from more \"\"professional\"\" sources such as monte-carlo modelling. (They'd agree better if I fed in all the details of my paycheck, but I don't feel like doing the work to keep that up to date.) I'm using Quicken, but I assume MS Money and other competitors have the same capability if you buy the appropriate version.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc6949e004cfa2dcce4beb3d855ce117",
"text": "I mean, it doesn't really apply to a lease/buy decision in a home. The variability due to the variables I discussed makes it not worth the analysis when you're talking about return differences of maybe 1-2%. Even if your house costs $1 million, that's only a difference of $10,000... MAYBE if there's no difference in the other variables, but there will be. My point is that it's not worth doing. DCF models are used for valuation of large projects, not simple home buying problems. There are way better ways to evaluate such a simple problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da7091305164c0b4b783b57f8f1d2d58",
"text": "The software he is talking about readjusts your portfolio weights back to your original allocation on a semi-constant basis. Basically it's designed to replace the stereotypical, lazy financial advisor. Your second point is quite valid though... One such example for anyone reading who has a young child is a coverdell ESA which allows you to put pretax income into an investment fund and withdraw tax free to spend on anything education related including the primary and secondary level (ie books, Supplies, field trips, tutoring, etc.). Basically money youd probably spend anyway, but this way you skip out on some taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daeeb14027f41c5f88d2279f2b4837d5",
"text": "nice work! really enjoyed looking through your website. do you see any possible application of Machine Learning (specifically tensorflow) to this? I was thinking about building a trading bot that uses data from various APIs as a strategy just as an experiment but I'm wondering what your insights are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "686113d3d16706ed6ffe900f4d461adf",
"text": "\"If your financial needs aren't complex, and mostly limited to portfolio management, consider looking into the newish thing called robo-advisers (proper term is \"\"Automated investing services\"\"). The difference is that robo-advisers use software to manage portfolios on a large scale, generating big economy of scale and therefore offering a much cheaper services than personal advisor would - and unless your financial needs are extremely complex, the state of the art of scaled up portfolio management is at the point that a human advisor really doesn't give you any value-add (and - as other answers noted - human advisor can easily bring in downsides such as conflict of interest and lack of fiduciary responsibility). disclaimer: I indirectly derive my living from a company which derives a very small part of their income from a robo-adviser, therefore there's a possible small conflict of interest in my answer\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee3149b12c0eb37a8beb933962a0205",
"text": "I recently made the switch to keeping track of my finance (Because I found an app that does almost everything for me). Before, my situation was fairly simple: I was unable to come up with a clear picture of how much I was spending vs saving (altho I had a rough idea). Now I here is what it changes: What I can do now: Is it useful ? Since I don't actually need to save more than I do (I am already saving 60-75% of my income), 1) isn't important. Since I don't have any visibility on my personal situation within a few years, 2) and 3) are not important. Conclusion: Since I don't actually spend any time building theses informations I am happy to use this app. It's kind of fun. If I did'nt had that tool... It would be a waste of time for me. Depends on your situation ? Nb: the app is Moneytree. Works only in Japan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31aee2d34d62c45dbe1bd0439bd542b1",
"text": "\"A couple options that I know of: Interactive Brokers offers a \"\"paper trading\"\" mode to its account holders that allows you to start with a pretend stack of money and place simulated trades to test trading ideas. They also provide an API that allows you to interface with their platform programmatically for retrieving quotes, placing orders, and the such. As you noted, however, it's not free; you must hold a funded brokerage account in order to qualify for access to their platform. In order to maintain an account, there are minimums for required equity and monthly activity (measured in dollars that you spend on commissions), so you won't get access to their platform without having a decent amount of skin in the game. IB's native API is Java-based; IbPy is an unofficial wrapper that makes the interface available in Python. I've not used IB at all myself, but I've heard good things about their API and its accessibility via IbPy. Edit: IB now supports Python natively via their published API, so using IbPy is no longer needed, unless you wish to use Python 2.x. The officially supported API is based on Python 3. TD Ameritrade also offers an API that is usable by its brokerage clients. They do not offer any such \"\"paper trading\"\" mode, so you would need to \"\"execute\"\" transactions based on quotes at the corresponding trade times and then keep track of your simulated account history yourself. The API supports quote retrieval, price history, and trade execution, among other functions. TDA might be more attractive than IB if you're looking for a low-cost link into market data, as I believe their minimum-equity levels are lower. To get access, you'll need to sign up for an API developer account, which I believe requires an NDA. I don't believe there is an official Python implementation of the API, but if you're a capable Python writer, you shouldn't have trouble hooking up to the published interfaces. Some caveats: as when doing any strategy backtesting, you'll want to be sure to be pessimistic when doing so, so your optimism doesn't make your trades look more successful than they would be in the real world. At a minimum, you'll want to ensure that your simulations transact at the posted bid/ask prices, not necessarily the last trade's price, as well as any commissions and fees associated with the trade. A more robust scheme would also take into account the depth of the order book (also known as level 2 quotes), which can cause additional slippage in the prices at which you buy/sell your security. An even more robust scheme would take into account the potential latency of trade execution, looking at all prices over some time period that covers the maximum expected latency and simulating the trade at the worst-possible price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7f993dfbcf0759103640b199efc5d9f",
"text": "At my first job (moderate sized quant prop fund) we inexplicably used Macs. Excel on a mac is a nightmare- if you tried to graph more than, say, 2000 data points it would grind to a halt, though this was some time ago. In retrospect maybe they were conditioning us to program rather than use excel...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74a1089bb1d601ec2114c0ed79ffc620",
"text": "I still don't see the point of this software; rebalancing frequently is a waste of money (through fees). If you invest in index funds, you don't have to rebalance at all--effectively, the fund is doing it for you, and since they can generally trade more efficiently than individual investors can, that's a win. The Coverdell ESA is a great example. There's a maximum contribution amount, just as there are for almost any tax-exempt account. A decent financial adviser could help you plan how much to contribute to which accounts, at what time, and when you can/should start to withdraw from them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8293b2227b2cf8e7b7a54f44800b5ed7",
"text": "often financial software is dire, with crappy interfaces and poorly integrated to the wider company. I have an ambition one day to create a modern human centred financial software that is focused on the task at hand rather than forcing the user to jump through unnecessary hoops. Also Excel should be banned for many reasons.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a48eecde3a549d01fefdc565b1a78b9",
"text": "\"It is very hard to find any \"\"tough math\"\" application that isn't already packaged nicely in a library or app. Unless you're out to break grounds, you don't need to do any math beyond knowing what function to call and what button to click. After went through and understanding a bunch of the option pricing equations, I forgot 99.9% of them already. Why? Because in a day to day basis, all I needed to know is which function to call in quantlib and trust whoever wrote quantlib know what they're doing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7eff9b05f079615ac6d4d7cee02d6c73",
"text": "It's important because it shows that the amount you owe does not decrease linearly with each payment, and you gain equity as a correspondingly slower rate at the beginning of the loan and faster at the end. This has to be figured in when considering refinancing, or when you sell the place and pay off the mortgage. It also shows why making extra payments toward principal (if your loan permits doing so) is so advantageous -- unlike a normal payment that lowers the whole curve by a notch, reducing the length of time over which interest is due and thus saving you money in the long run. (Modulo possible lost-opportnity costs, of course.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a204bacd64832933e71eaa29d40b4dc6
|
Ordering from Canada, charged in CAD or USD?
|
[
{
"docid": "bf3ad180ec76b658c385425a3fb820a0",
"text": "Typically, businesses always charge their 'home' currency, so if the shop is in Canada, you will pay Canadian Dollars. Normally you don't have any choices either. Your credit card company will convert it to your currency, using the current international currency exchange rate (pretty good), plus a potential fee between 0 and 5% - depending on your credit card (not so good). If it is a significant amount, or you plan to do that more than once, and if you have multiple credit cards, check first to see which one has the lowest international fee; 0% is not uncommon, but neither is 3 or 4%. If it's a 10$ thingy, it's probably not worth the time; but 4% of 1000 is already 40$... As of right now, the currency exchange rate is 1.33, so you would pay ~75 USD; plus the potential fee, 0$ - 4$. Understand that this exchange rate is floating continuously; it probably won't change much, but it will change.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7ba990649e6c9220ec937aa97e31bcd2",
"text": "\"No. Suppose you have 100 Canadian dollars and the exchange rate is 2 CAD = 1 USD. You use your 100 CAD to purchase 50 USD (in your bank account that is in USD). Some time later the Canadian dollar grows stronger, so that now 1 CAD = 1 USD. If you now withdraw your 50 USD and get Canadian dollars, you will receive 50 CAD. You have lost half your money. If you want to make money on currency exchange rates (which is a risky plan), you should buy the currency that is cheap (i.e., \"\"weak\"\"). If, say, oil is very cheap, you don't make money by selling oil; you buy it and sell it later when the price goes up. Likewise, if the Canadian dollar isn't worth much and the US dollar is, you should buy Canadian dollars, not US dollars, hoping to sell them later when the exchange rate is more favorable. See also this similar question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a73b83ef85d6ca73218ea60b4779a1a",
"text": "\"The OP does not explain \"\"what we pay for processing the transaction (cost of debiting the customer)\"\". Who exactly do you pay? Someone else, or your own employees/contractors? I will assume that $0.10 is paid to your own employees. Dr $10cash from money people give you Cr $10 liability to them because it is their money in your accounts. Dr $0.10 cash payment of paycheques or supplier invoices Cr $0.10 income statement Operating Eexpense Dr 0.20 liability to depositors for fees they pay, resulting in $9.80 remaining liability for their money you still have. Cr 0.20 income statement Fee Revenues\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f02830ba5efdc24826592ab73374d63",
"text": "One can pay via Indian Credit Card. The card company will convert the USD and charge you in Rupees. And when there are enough Indian websites that do domain name registering, any specific reason you are looking at eurodns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "551209fba299aa15ed4dd94754ca16ad",
"text": "Use prepaid cards. You only have to declare, or mention, or convert CASH. You can get as many $500 prepaid cards as you like and carry them across. US Code only mentions cash, so even if customs thought it was peculiar that you had one thousand prepaid cards in your trunk, it isn't something they look into. Prepaid cards come with small transaction fees though. And of course, you could also use a bank account in America and just withdraw from an ATM in canada. Finally, the FBAR isn't that much of a hassle, in case you did decide to get a canadian bank account. The US Federal Gov't doesn't care about all these crafty things you might do, as long as you are using POST-TAX money. If your foreign account earns interest, then you have some pre-tax money that the US Federal Gov't will care about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc60c2be7f14a3235c87dbae4b1b69fd",
"text": "Transferwise gives an excellent exchange rate and very minimal costs. They save on costs by not actually changing any money; your money goes to someone else in the US, and the Canadia dollars you want come from someone else in Canada. No money changes currency or crosses borders, there is no bank transfer fee (assuming that domestic bank transfers, inside the country, are free), and they give an excellent exchange rate (very nearly the spot rate, I find; far better than many rates I find online for sending money across the border). I sent money from the UK to Japan with it last week, at a fixed fee of about three US dollars (I was charged in GBP, obviously). About one tenth the cost of an international bank transfer. I just double-checked; at about midday on the fifth of October 2016, they gave me a rate of 130.15 JPY per 1 GBP, and then charged me two GBP to transfer the money. The rate that day, according to xe.com, varied between 130.7 and 132 ; basically, I don't think I could have got a better deal pretty much anywhere. As I type, this very second, they offer 1.33 CAD for 1 USD , and google tells me that this very second, the exchange rate is 1.33 CAD for 1 USD - transferwise is giving the spot price. I don't think you'll get a better rate anywhere else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b25f5bafb3d66343aac4841d554e5e52",
"text": "The missing information is at the end of the first line: the price is from NASDAQ (most specifically Nasdaq Global Select), which is a stock exchange in the USA, so the price is in US Dollars.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bdf54b24c8b2ca7048195a51a36f08c",
"text": "The all time low on the Canadian dollar was 61.79 US cents on Jan 21, 2002. Yes, it will now cost you about US$1.01 to pay back a Canadian dollar, if when you borrowed you agreed to pay in their currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13471ba299b77587da09a42eb87f6fe5",
"text": "I found the answer to what you're looking for in the PayPal Help Center. Refer specifically to the question PayPal - How much do you charge to my card when confirming my debit or credit card?. Quote: We take the extra step to confirm your card so that we can verify that the card is valid and that you are the card owner. To confirm your card, we’ll charge $1.95 to it. After the card is confirmed, we’ll refund the amount to your PayPal balance. Here are amounts for cards in other countries: If we can’t determine or don’t support your card’s currency, we charge $1.95 USD to the card. (Refer directly to PayPal for potentially more up-to-date information.)",
"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": "1bb0e529a8f9a98d69d5d1581916f030",
"text": "Investors who are themselves Canadian and already hold Canadian dollars (CAD) would be more likely to purchase the TSX-listed shares that are quoted in CAD, thus avoiding the currency exchange fees that would be required to buy USD-quoted shares listed on the NYSE. Assuming Shopify is only offering a single class of shares to the public in the IPO (and Shopify's form F-1 only mentions Class A subordinate voting shares as being offered) then the shares that will trade on the TSX and NYSE will be the same class, i.e. identical. Consequently, the primary difference will be the currency in which they are quoted and trade. This adds another dimension to possible arbitrage, where not only the bare price could deviate between exchanges, but also due to currency fluctuation. An additional implication for a company to maintain such a dual listing is that they'll need to adhere to the requirements of both the TSX and NYSE. While this may have a hard cost in terms of additional filing requirements etc., in theory they will benefit from the additional liquidity provided by having the multiple listings. Canadians, in particular, are more likely to invest in a Canadian company when it has a TSX listing quoted in CAD. Also, for a company listed on both the TSX and NYSE, I would expect the TSX listing would be more likely to yield inclusion in a significant market index—say, one based on market capitalization, and thus benefit the company by having its shares purchased by index ETFs and index mutual funds that track the index. I'll also remark that this dual U.S./Canadian exchange listing is not uncommon when it comes to Canadian companies that have significant business outside of Canada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e452b219724c5f5bd7923cc1230effeb",
"text": "Have you looked at ThinkorSwim, which is now part of TD Ameritrade? Because of their new owner, you'll certainly be accepted as a US customer and the support will likely be responsive. They are certainly pushing webinars and learning resources around the ThinkorSwim platform. At the least you can start a Live Help session and get your answers. That link will take you to the supported order types list. Another tab there will show you the currency pairs. USD is available with both CAD and JPY. Looks like the minimum balance requirement is $25k across all ThinkorSwim accounts. Barron's likes the platform and their annual review may help you find reasons to like it. Here is more specific news from a press release: OMAHA, Neb., Aug 24, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- TD AMERITRADE Holding Corporation (NASDAQ: AMTD) today announced that futures and spot forex (foreign exchange) trading capabilities are now available via the firm's thinkorswim from TD AMERITRADE trading platform, joining the recently introduced complex options functionality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2438c8da62edf50437db72d42fd7f996",
"text": "Like Ganesh, I've used XE Trade - however I still do, fairly often. I have never had a single problem with them regardless of the method I used to move money -- Draft, Wire, ACH, bill payment through online banking, etc. The type of trade I do most often is online bill payment to ACH -- i.e. I pay through my banking site and they pay through ACH. There's no fee and it takes 2 business days to go through. I do mainly CAD to USD conversions and I lose about 1.25 cents on the rate -- for example, if the CAD is worth 95 cents US, converting $100 CAD would get me $92.75 USD. The banks usually take 2.5% or so, so it's 50% savings. It was free and pretty simple to sign up, all online -- and besides the standard info all they required was for me to upload a scan of a bank statement. As for an API, I have no idea if they have one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7167ec18e71daaffb58292000094dc2c",
"text": "Would I have to pay some kind of capital gains tax? And if so, when? Converting Tax paid USD into CAD is not a taxable event. A taxable even will occur if you convert back the CAD into USD. If you receive interest on the CAD then the interest is also a taxable event. Also, is there any reason this is a terrible idea? That will only be known in future. Its like predicting that in future this will turn out to be advantageous, however it may turn out the other way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0a837bb59550e224a7b7b583c1f7dc1",
"text": "You shouldn't be charged interest, unless possibly because your purchases involve a currency conversion. I've made normal purchases that happened to involve changes in currency. The prices were quoted in US$ to me. On the tail end, though, the currency change was treated as a cash advance, which accrues interest immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b325654181d951f0e841dc9a11bba72",
"text": "Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fe3b9d9366d4c2d65bb80fdbbdbcfa0c
|
Are credit histories/scores international?
|
[
{
"docid": "648f6347d16224f43171a32628d4a67e",
"text": "Currently the credit history are not International but are local. Many countries don't have a concept of credit history yet. Having said that, if you are moving to US, depending on your history in your country, you can ask the same bank to provide you with a card and then start building history. For example in India I had a card with Citi Bank and when I moved to US for a short period, I was given a card based on my India Card, with equivalent credit in USD. If you are moving often internationally, it would make sense to Bank with a leading bank that provide services in geographies of your interest [Citi, HSBC, etc] and then in a new country approach these institutions to get you some starting credit for you to build a history.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "762f38a3a0d17031245925ce5ae08704",
"text": "\"It's not just that credit history is local; it's that it's a private business run for profit. The \"\"big three\"\" credit bureaus in the US are Experian, Equifax and Transunion. They collect information on debt usage and abuse from various companies in the US, and charge a fee to provide that information (and their judgement of you) to companies interested in offering you further credit. But there's nothing stopping a company from collecting international credit histories, or specialized credit histories either (for instance, there's a company called ChexSystems which focuses on retail purchase financing (mostly auto) and checking account abuse, while ignoring other types of lending). That being said, I don't know of any companies which currently collect international credit histories. Perhaps in Europe, with more nations in close geographic proximity, there would be, but not in North America.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9aca3ed9a7f0fbd96ff27dc29906f179",
"text": "Credit history is local, so when you move to the US you start with the blank slate. Credit history length is a huge factor, so in the first year expect that nobody would trust you and you may be refused credit or asked for deposits. I was asked for deposits at cell phone company and refused for store cards couple of times. My advice - get a secured credit card (that means you put certain sum of money as a deposit in the bank and you get credit equal to that sum of money) and if you have something like a car loan that helps too (of course, you shouldn't buy a car just for that ;) but if you're buying anyway, just know it's not only hurting but also helping when you pay). Once you have a year or two of the history and you've kept with all the payments, you credit score would be OK and everybody would be happy to work with you. In 4-5 years you can have excellent credit record if you pay on time and don't do anything bad. If you are working it the US, a lot of help at first would be to take a letter from your company on an official letterhead saying that you are employed by this and that company and are getting salary of this and that. That can serve as an assurance for some merchants that otherwise would be reluctant to work with you because of the absence of credit history. If you have any assets overseas, especially if they are held in a branch of international bank in US dollars, that could help too. In general, don't count too much on credit for first 1-2 years (though you'd probably could get a car loan, for example, but rates would be exorbitant - easily 10 percentage points higher than with good credit), but it will get better soon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8f00666597667cba3f609b5c26ee232",
"text": "Some countries in European Union are starting to implement credit history sharing, for example now history from polish bureau BIK and German Schufa are mutually available. Similar agreements are planned between polish BIK and bureaus in the Netherlands and United Kingdom.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5bf8916a07958f21f05d6bdb91a0000f",
"text": "\"First, a note of my personal experience: up until a year ago, my credit lines were composed exclusively of credit cards with perfect payment histories, and my credit score is fine. If you mean that credit cards have no impact on a person's credit score until they miss a payment, that is certainly not correct. FICO's website identifies \"\"payment history\"\" as 35% of your FICO score: The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you’ve paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. ... Credit payment history on many types of accounts Account types considered for payment history include: ... Details on late or missed payments (\"\"delinquencies\"\") and public record and collection items FICO® Scores consider: How many accounts show no late payment A good track record on most of your credit accounts will increase your FICO® Scores. Clearly, from the last item alone, we see that credit lines (a category which includes credit cards) with no late payments is a factor in computing your FICO score, and certainly other credit bureaus behave similarly. Possibly the banker was trying to explain some other point, like \"\"If you're careful not to spend more on your card than you have in the bank, you can functionally treat your credit card as a debit line,\"\" but did so in a confusing way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b64b7488d616ae026c37b3cf64919b2",
"text": "In addition to the already good answers: I am assuming you are playing a long game and have no specific need for a high credit score in the next couple of years. This list is just good practice that will raise you score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1f1bd2ee9a6d2caf9bfec545571ff8c",
"text": "I came to US as an international student several years ago, and I have also experienced the same situation like most of the international students in finding ways to build credit history. Below I list out some possible approaches you may want to consider: I. Get a student job at campus (recommended) I think the best way is to get a student job in university, say a teaching assistant or student helper. In this case, you can be provided with a social security number and start to build your own credit history. II. Get credit card You can also consider to apply for a credit card. There are indeed some financial institutions that can provide credit cards for international students with no or limited credit scores requirement, say Discover and Bank of America. However, it is relatively hard to get approved, simply because hey may put more restriction in other aspects. For example, you may be required to keep sufficient bank balance above several thousand dollars during a period of time, or you should prove that you have relatives with citizenship in US who can provide your financial aid if needed. III. Apply for a loan (recommended) Getting a loan product is another alternative to get out of this difficult situation, but most of people don’t realize that. There are some FinTech start-ups in United States that specifically focus on international students’ loan financing. One representative example is Westbon (Westbon ), an online lending company that specializes in providing car loan for international students with no SSN or credit history. I once used their loan product to finance a Honda Accord, and Westbon reported my loan transaction records to US credit bureau during my repayment process. Later when I officially got my SSN number, I found my credit history has been automatically synchronized and I don’t have to start from all over again. It never be an easy journey for international students to build credit history in United States. What approach you should make really depends on you own situation. I hope the information above can be useful and good luck for your credit journey!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc8923bef2dbee376d2121e54cd03757",
"text": "Yes, they do. Generally though you'll only see it on one or two reports. With regards to the impact on your credit score. Hard inquiries only stay on your credit for 2 years, after that they fall off. For most credit scores (specifically FICO) they only have an impact for 1 year after their date. If you have a few in the same 30 day period FICO will lump these into 1 pull to allow you to shop around for credit/loans. They also have a low to medium impact on your score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71c5d6bcf38f61d6e21be33a3a5e1dd3",
"text": "Sorry. As far as I know, a person's SS is the only way to establish credit. This is the first thing they ask whenever you apply for any service in the US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07a8e5710dceceec0f5f187e0a021a6f",
"text": "The negative effects of multiple hard inquiries in a short span of time don't stack, they're treated as a single inquiry (and inquiries aren't *that* bad anyway, the only ding you by a few points). The bigger problem here is the **other** reason your bank gave you - Too many overdrawn accounts. If you don't believe you currently have any overdrawn accounts, you need to pull your credit report *now* and make sure it's accurate. Maybe there's a mistake on your credit, maybe you're a victim of identity theft. That said, 1.5 years isn't really very long in credit terms for managing to keep your record clean, so maybe your credit just needs a few more years to heal. But *definitely* pull your credit report to rule out the worst possibilities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a0c5da5d45000dd5a41105eb72828b9",
"text": "The reason you would want to report to all three is because lenders don't usually query all three. Thus, it may be that your negative mark will be missed by a future lender because that lender didn't query the agency you chose to report to. Generally, it is cheaper to report to more agencies than to query more agencies, and since those reporting are also those querying, it is in their best interest to continue reporting to all agencies, and expecting others to do the same. Each agency calculates the score independently based on the information reported to that agency. Thus only reporting a negative item to Experian will mean that TransUnion and Equifax scores for the same person will be higher.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6520e3b663c9d07ae98d430a59c8934e",
"text": "I talked to the director of equity research at an international us based bank. He said that with mifid ii would force them to unbundle research fees in the US. It would be very difficult to have a different fee structure only for UK clients.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b72477e5c6869fd1514ba798f7f597b5",
"text": "\"Going off hearsay here. I believe your question is. \"\"Does not having a credit card lower your credit score\"\" If that is the question then in the UK at least the answer appears to be yes. Having a credit card makes you less of a risk because you have proven that you can handle a little bit of debt and pay it back. I have a really tiny credit history. Never had a credit card and the only people who will lend to me are my own bank because they can actually see my income / expenditure. When I have queried my bank and at stores offering credit they have said that no credit history isn't far off a bad credit record. Simply having a credit card and doing the odd transactions show's lenders you are at least semi-responsible and is seen as a positive. Not having a credit card and not having much else for that matter makes you an unknown and an unknown is a risk in the eyes of lenders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99cc24666a7edbd24d598e9a9a0bfd1e",
"text": "I never received any bad treatment as a foreigner. I have dinner with my landlord once a month, and go to the bar with the guy that sold me the plan. Why the fuck would you take out a loan in a foreign country? If you need to so badly, then you obviously don't have the collateral to do so and that's why they are turning you away. Homogenous countries are naturally xenophobic, get over it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "872d37b659b196edc2b87bc5f87f3ac7",
"text": "It won't hurt your credit rating. I wouldn't worry about it. The company can certainly pursue debt collections across borders but unless its a massive sum.. they will write it off. Now.. what the right thing to do is to take care of it... 1. for karma's sake and 2. so you don't make a bad name for foreigners.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afb354dbf0db4b576653e9d344a89438",
"text": "Assuming you are asking about a credit score in the United States, the following applies. To find out your FICO score, navigate to AnnualCreditReport, the official site to help consumers receive their credit report from each of the three organizations providing these scores - Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. You are - in many states - entitled to a free copy of your credit report from each of these organizations annually. This copy of your credit report will not contain your credit score from that organization. It will, however, contain information that goes into your credit score - the lines of credits on file, any delinquencies reported, etc. If you decide you would like to pay for your credit score from each bureau, you will have the option to receive this information while getting your credit report, but you will have to pay a nominal fee for it. Remember that each of the 3 bureaus gives you a different score. Averaging your 3 scores should give you a good idea of your FICO score. Note that your report is far more important than your score - once you know that, you know if you're in a good place or not. These other questions are so close that they might even be considered duplicates, and provide other suggestions for how to check your score. As a warning, don't trust the many ads out there saying you can get your score for free. Only AnnualCreditReport is considered a safe place for entering the very personal information required to get a score. The FTC backs this up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "160c33cef70d54dbee73af39f0c42327",
"text": "No. I have several that I haven't used in a year or so (legacy of the time when they gave you money to sign up :-)), and credit rating's something over 800 last I checked.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11b39e366f3d2845e53b28c60886fc9e",
"text": "\"This question has the [united kingdom] tag, so the information about USA or other law and procedures is probably only of tangential use. Except for understanding that no, this is not something to ignore. It may well indicate someone trying to use your id fraudulently, or some other sort of data-processing foul-up that may adversely impact your credit rating. The first thing I would do is phone the credit card company that sent the letter to inform them that I did not make his application, and ask firmly but politely to speak to their fraud team. I would hope that they would be helpful. It's in their interests as well as yours. (Added later) By the way, do not trust anything written on the letter. It may be a fake letter trying to lure or panic you into some other sort of scam, such as closing your \"\"compromised\"\" bank account and transferring the money in it to the \"\"fraud team\"\" for \"\"safety\"\". (Yes, it sounds stupid, but con-men are experts at what they do, and even finance industry professionals have fallen victim to such scams) So find a telephone number for that credit card company independently, for example Google, and then call that number. If it's the wrong department they'll be able to transfer you internally. If the card company is unhelpful, you have certain legal rights that do not cost much if anything. This credit company is obliged to tell you as an absolute minimum, which credit reference agencies they used when deciding to decline \"\"your\"\" application. Yes, you did not make it, but it was in your name and affected your credit rating. There are three main credit rating agencies, and whether or not the bank used them, I would spend the statutory £2 fee (if necessary) with each of them to obtain your statutory credit report, which basically is all data that they hold about you. They are obliged to correct anything which is inaccurate, and you have an absolute right to attach a note to your file explaining, for example, that you allege entries x,y, and z were fraudulently caused by an unknown third party trying to steal your ID. (They may be factually correct, e.g. \"\"Credit search on \"\", so it's possible that you cannot have them removed, and it may not be in your interests to have them removed, but you certainly want them flagged as unauthorized). If you think the fraudster may be known to you, you can also use the Data Protection Act on the company which write to you, requiring them to send you a copy of all data allegedly concerning yourself which it holds. AFAIR this costs £10. In particular you will require sight of the application and signature, if it was made on paper, and the IP address details, if it was made electronically, as well as all the data content and subsequent communications. You may recognise the handwriting, but even if not, you then have documentary evidence that it is not yours. As for the IP address, you can deduce the internet service provider and then use the Data Protection act on them. They may decline to give any details if the fraudster used his own credentials, in which case again you have documentary evidence that it was not you ... and something to give the police and bank fraud investigators if they get interested. I suspect they won't be very interested, if all you uncover is fraudulent applications that were declined. However, you may uncover a successful fraud, i.e. a live card in your name being used by a criminal, or a store or phone credit agreement. In which case obviously get in touch with that company a.s.a.p. to get it shut down and to get the authorities involved in dealing with the crime. In general, write down everything you are told, including phone contact names, and keep it. Confirm anything that you have agreed in writing, and keep copies of the letters you write and of course, the replies you receive. You shouldn't need any lawyer. The UK credit law puts the onus very much on the credit card company to prove that you owe it money, and if a random stranger has stolen your id, it won't be able to do that. In fact, it's most unlikely that it will even try, unless you have a criminal record or a record of financial delinquency. But it may be an awful lot of aggravation for years to come, if somebody has successfully stolen your ID. So even if the first lot of credit reference agency print-outs look \"\"clean\"\", check again in about six weeks time and yet again in maybe 3 months. Finally there is a scheme that you can join if you have been a victim of ID theft. I've forgotten its name but you will probably be told about it. Baically, your credit reference files will be tagged at your request with a requirement for extra precautions to be taken. This should not affect your credit rating but might make obtaining credit more hassle (for example, requests for additional ID before your account is opened after the approval process). Oh, and post a letter to yourself pdq. It's not unknown for fraudsters to persuade the Post Office to redirect all your mail to their address!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c96a10c6eee402bcb40dbc20e9facc5",
"text": "Unless stated otherwise, these terms apply to all bonds. The par value or face value of a bond refers to the value of the bond when it's redeemed at maturity. A bond with a par value of $10,000 simply means that if you purchase the bond and hold it until the maturity date specified in the contract, you receive $10,000. The purchase price, however, is exactly that: it's what you paid for the bond. Bonds may sell below, at, or above par. Continuing the example from above, if you paid $9,800 for a bought a bond with a $10,000 par value, you bought the bond below par. A bond selling below par is said to be selling at a discount. For bonds selling above bar, they're selling at a premium. If the purchase price and the par value are the same, the bond is selling at par. These terms apply to callable bonds only, which are bond contracts that allow the issuer of the bond (in the case of municipal bonds, the institution or agency who created the contract) to buy back from bond holders at a given date (the call date) and at a given price (the call price) before the bond reaches maturity and pays the holder the full par value. Yes, the coupon rate is essentially the interest paid. It's usually represented as a percent of the par value, so if the $10,000 in the example above had a 5% coupon rate, this means that it paid out 0.05 * 10,000 = $500 each year. Usually, this payment is made as two semi-annual payments of $250. Some bonds are zero-coupon bonds, which means exactly what you would think; they don't make any coupon payments. U.S. Treasury Bills are one example of a zero-coupon bond. All of these factors are linked, because the coupon rate, callable provisions, and par value, along with the overall economic environment, can affect the purchase price of a bond.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
287328c78a49ff299799a43c9a59ff93
|
Any problem if I continuously spend my credit card more than normal people?
|
[
{
"docid": "3654c49e93418a601245e84ca431ad22",
"text": "How will going from 75% Credit Utilization to 0% Credit Utilization affect my credit score? might answer your question if US based. In the US, what counts is what shows on the bill. I've run $20K through a card with a $10K limit, but still ended the month under $2K by making extra payments. As long as you stay ahead of the limit by making mid-cycle payments, I see no issue with this strategy. If you keep running $30K/mo through a card with a $10K limit, the bank will eventually catch this and raise your limit as you will have proven you are more credit worthy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc21ff450a0a0809f018f1758627b97f",
"text": "\"Sometimes when you are trying to qualify for a loan, the lender will ask for proof of your account balances and costs. Your scheme here could be cause for some questions: \"\"why are you paying $20-30k to your credit card each month, is there a large debt you haven't disclosed?\"\". Or perhaps \"\"if you lost your job, would you be able to afford to continue to pay $20-30k\"\". Of course this isn't a real expense and you can stop whenever you want, but still as a lender I would want to understand this fully before loaning to someone who really does need to pay $20-30k per month. Who knows this might hiding some troublesome issues, like perhaps a side business is failing and you're trying to keep it afloat.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e9bac1027ee2d9a25304a0689621aa4a",
"text": "These kinds of credit card offers are incredibly common. More often you will get a certain reward if you spend $X within Y days of getting the card. In many cases you can take advantage of them with very little downside. However, are you responsible enough to have a credit card and be able to pay off the balance every month? If not the interest charges could quickly wipe out the $50 bonus you get. And hard inquiries and new accounts could potentially affect your credit score, particularly if you don't have a well-established credit history. There's also the chance you get denied in which case you add a hard inquiry to your credit report for no gain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "deaa83b849c38055661efd74493c55d2",
"text": "I would say you are typical. The way people are able to build their available credit, then subsequently build their average balances is buy building their credit score. According to FICO your credit score is made up as follows: Given that you had no history, and only new credit you are pretty much lacking in all areas. What the typical person does, is get a card, pay on it for 6 months and assuming good history will either get an automatic bump; or, they can request a credit limit increase. Credit score has nothing to do with wealth or income. So even if you had 100K in the bank you would likely still be facing the same issue. The bank that holds the money might make an exception. It is very easy to see how a college student can build to 2000 or more. They start out with a $200 balance to a department store and in about 6 months they get a real CC with a 500 balance and one to a second department store. Given at least a decent payment history, that limit could easily increase above 2500 and there could be more then one card open. Along the lines of what littleadv says, the companies even welcome some late payments. The fees are more lucrative and they can bump the interest rate. All is good as long as the payments are made. Getting students and children involved with credit cards is a goal of the industry. They can obtain an emotional attachment that goes beyond good business reasoning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cbabb8e33466d09fa56112969ee35f3",
"text": "Having worked at a financial institution, this is a somewhat simple, two-part solution. 1) The lendor/vendor/financial institution simply turns off the overdraft protection in all its forms. If no funds are available at a pin-presented transaction, the payment is simply declined. No fee, no overdraft, no mess. 2) This sticking point for a recurring transaction, is that merchants such as Netflix, Gold's Gym etc, CHOOSE to allow payments like this, BECAUSE they are assured they are going to get paid by the financial institution. It prevents them from having issues. Only a gift card will not cost you more money than you put in, BUT I know of several institutions, that too many non-payment periods can cause them to cease doing business with you in the future. TL:DR/IMO If you don't want to pay more than you have, gift cards are the way to go. You can re-charge them whenever you choose, and should you run into a problem, simply buy a new card and start over.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44af6e62a7fd75f9cf9513658df55b90",
"text": "Trick question dude. Can't be done. Sorry to tell you. I've been hit with this. Credit card companies do not make money on these customers. Why does Amex have an annual fee on all cards and an abnormally large transaction fee for merchants? Because they don't allow you to carry a balance (On traditional cards). Meaning they don't make money on interest, like the customers in question here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00e5b6849aa3eb56d71d5a50da47a537",
"text": "\"Well, I answered a very similar question \"\"Credit card payment date\"\" where I showed that for a normal cycle, the average charge isn't due for 40 days. The range is 35-55, so if you want to feel good about the float just charge everything the day after the cycle closes, and nothing else the rest of the month. Why is this so interesting? It's no trick, and no secret. By the way, this isn't likely to be of any use when you're buying gas, groceries, or normal purchases. But, I suppose if you have a large purchase, say a big TV, $3000, this will buy you extra time to pay. It would be remiss of me to not clearly state that anyone who needs to take advantage of this \"\"trick\"\" is the same person who probably shouldn't use credit cards at all. Those who use cards are best served by charging what they can afford to pay at that moment and not base today's charges on what paychecks will come in by the due date of the credit card bill.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8ff59ea2c23ffa7b310d9932d2fd828",
"text": "\"I also feel it's important to NOT get a credit card. I'm in my mid 30's and have had credit cards since I was 20, as has everyone I know. Every single one of those people, with the exception of my dad, is currently carrying some amount of credit card debt - almost always in the thousands of dollars. Here is the essential problem with credit cards. Everyone sets out with good intentions, to use the credit card like a debit card, and pay charges off before interest accrues. However, almost no-one has the discipline to remember to do this, and a balance quickly builds up on the card. Also, it's extremely easy to prioritize other bill payments before credit card payments, resulting in a balance building up on the card. It's almost magical how quickly a balance will build up on a credit card. Ultimately, they are simply too convenient, too tempting for most human beings. The world, and especially the North American world, is in a massive debt crisis. It is very easy to borrow money these days, and our culture is at the point where \"\"buy now pay later\"\" is an accepted practice. Now that I have young children, I will be teaching them the golden rule of \"\"don't buy something until you have cash to pay for it in full!\"\" It sounds like an over simplification but this one rule will save you an incredible amount of financial grief over time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6734fb004cec0b47e1fe3632aba0ffa",
"text": "Unless a study accounts for whether the users are following a budget or not, it is irrelevant to those who are trying to take their personal finances seriously. I can certainly believe that those who have no budget will spend more on a credit card than they will on a debit card or with cash. Under the right circumstances spending with cards can actually be a tool to track and reduce spending. If you can see on a monthly and yearly basis where all of your money was spent, you have the information to make decisions about the small expenses that add up as well as the obvious large expenses. Debit cards and credit cards offer the same advantage of giving you an electronic record of all of your transactions, but debit cards do not come with the same fraud protection that credit cards have, so I (and many people like me) prefer to use credit cards for security reasons alone. Cash back and other rewards points bolster the case for credit cards over debit cards. It is very possible to track all of your spending with cash, but it is also more work. The frustration of accounting for bad transcriptions and rechecking every transaction multiple times is worth discussing too (as a reason that people get discouraged and give up on budgeting). My point is simply that credit cards and the electronic records that they generate can greatly simplify the process of tracking your spending. I doubt any study out there accounts for the people who are specifically using those benefits and what effect it has on their spending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eeea9e3aa75d573084f3c12b14c3b07",
"text": "Yes, it is possible, and many companies do it for legitimate reasons. For example renewing subscriptions or one-click ordering. The only way to completely stop it would be to cancel the card. More realistically, check your bill whenever it arrives, and report any unauthorized transactions to the card issuer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c857568e16c52860e638a12be35abfa",
"text": "\"Keep track of everything you buy. Write it down and be accountable. Try not to buy anything on credit cards, if the money is not in your account now then you can't afford it. Ask yourself whether what you're buying is a \"\"need\"\" or a \"\"want\"\". If you find that you are buying things because you are bored and you like shopping then try taking up a (cheap) hobby that fills that void and is something you enjoy doing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1ac63c2ee53b60ddd1be6b29be37ba6",
"text": "\"but there's that risk of me simply logging on to my online banking and transferring extra cash over if I cave in. Yep, there's no reasonable substitute for self-control. You could pay someone else to manage your money and dole out an allowance for your discretionary spending, but that's not reasonable for most people. Your money will be accessible to you, you don't need it inaccessible, you need to change the way you think about your available money. Many people struggle with turning a corner when it comes to saving, a tool that helps many is a proper budget. Plan ahead how all of your money will be used, including entertainment. If you want to spend £200/month on entertainment, then plan for it in a budget, and track your spending to help keep within that budget. It's a discipline thing, but a budget makes it easier to be disciplined, having a defined plan makes it easier to say \"\"I can't\"\" rather than \"\"I shouldn't, but... okay!\"\" There are many budgeting tools, just pick one that has you planning how all your money is spent, you want to be proactive and plan for saving, not hoping you have some leftover at the end of the month. Here's a good article on How and Why to Use a Zero-Sum Budget. Some people have envelopes of cash for various budget items, and that can be helpful if you struggle to stick to your budget, once the entertainment envelope is empty, you can't spend on entertainment until next month, but it won't stop you from blowing the budget by just getting more cash, as you mentioned.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cec404b25b1a09b02f312007d5d907d9",
"text": "\"I'm not sure that OP was asking if he/she personally should have more available credit, so I will answer the other interpretation: should that particular card have a higher limit? The answer is \"\"no.\"\" The range varies vastly by issuer. Starting limits vary widely from issuer to issuer even with identical credit histories. Some issuers never automatically increase the limit, some periodically conduct account reviews to determine if an increase is warranted. Some like to see higher spending habits each month. Personally, my cards range from $500 to $25000, and the high and low extremes are the same age. You can search for tips on how often to request increases for your particular card, or what kind of spending habits the issuer prefers. An important note: You do not need to carry a balance to make the issuer happy. You never need to pay a cent in credit card interest.\"",
"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": "10fb3876dfd56ac3b8ae39c4aaf46346",
"text": "Do you need it? It doesn't sound like it - you seem to be able to manage with just the cards you have. Will it hurt anything? Probably not either, unless it entices you to spend more than you make. Another downside might be that you would spend more than you normally would just to have activity on every card. So all in all, I don't see much upside.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cafbe9188cfb9191ff583501456891b8",
"text": "The biggest risk is Credit Utilization rate. If you have a total of $10,000 in revolving credit (ie: credit card line) and you ever have more than 50% (or 33% to be conservative) on the card at any time then your credit score will be negatively impacted. This will be a negative impact even if you charge it on day one and pay it off in full on day 2. Doesn't make much sense but credit companies are playing the averages: on average they find that people who get close to maxing their credit limit are in some sort of financial trouble. You're better off to make small purchases each month, under $100, and pay them off right away. That will build a better credit history - and score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d95ff0530073eeb874ecfe7edb13e1c5",
"text": "\"Your credit card limit is nothing more than a simple number. When you purchase something, the merchant receives a number (i.e. the amount of the transaction) from your card company (e.g. Visa) in their bank account, and that number is subtracted from your limit (added to your balance). The amount is recorded, and isn't changed, so that's how they get the \"\"exact\"\" amount you paid. Transferring a number is easier than the retailer having to wait for cash to get from you to your card company to them. Moving numbers around is the basis of the modern financial system. And yes, it is always a risk to let someone else have your credit card number. An untrustworthy company/person may use it to charge you without your permission, or if they have your full details they could use it as if they were you. With a reputable retailer like Amazon, the main risk is data theft: If a security hole is found in Amazon's system, someone could steal your credit card info and misuse it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fa78250c2786773d605cb027dbc816e1
|
Should I stockpile nickels?
|
[
{
"docid": "2d2fd0c45caf45fe21db06971a5f4f8b",
"text": "At one point it was illegal to melt silver coins in the US, but it is legal now. I don't know that will happen with copper coins, but that's what happened with silver coins. Accumulating nickels and leaving them as-is (in their spendable state) is legal. It's also a way to take physical ownership of copper. I expect to see more sales of nickels based on weight. People are already selling high-copper-content cents on eBay, by weight. There are machines in production that sort the zinc ones from the copper ones. Gresham's Law has small business backing. ;) Copper cents are already worth twice their face value in the copper content. Nickels will get up there, too. They are awfully heavy and bulky relative to their value, though. Precious metals give you better bang for your ounce.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9c269c1738bf4bf3b406432977e7b48",
"text": "Probably a big fat NO. Update re this edit: NOTE: I'm not suggesting that I melt the coins. I'm just suggesting that I hold onto the nickels and sell them later when they are worth more than 5 cents. For example, you can sell coins with silver in them for far above their face value. This is silly as an investment. Right up there with stockpiling cars. :) The increase in value will likely never be enough to make the cost/hassle of storage worth it. As MrChrister states, it is a fine idea as a collection, but not as a stockpile. Edit (from the comments): I am surprised I did not latch onto this in the previous update. Silver is considered a previous metal, nickel and copper are not. BTW, the U.S. nickel is 25% nickel and 75% copper. Also, how in the world do you plan on actually selling a stockpile of nickels?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5324aae6c07cc96c180c7f319c20f807",
"text": "Stockpile? No. Keep a few around? Sure, if you are a collector. I used to collect pennies and I thought the steel pennies from WWII were neat. I do believe I paid about $0.01 for them at the coin shop. They might be worth $0.15 if in great condition today. No harm in finding $20 worth of really nice nickels, maybe in chronological order and from the different mints. Put them in a collector case so they stay nice and chuck them in your fireproof safe with your house deed and insurance policies. But I don't think you are going to hit it particularly big, but it might be a nice thing to pass along as an inheritance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "082f14c41f4cad02f4f519340bfc5460",
"text": "It seems like a lot of hassle to make a few bucks. $1,000 in nickels would weight 100kg. I'd rather put my money in ING or into a bond mutual fund like VBMFX.",
"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": "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": "7db774ff9b29872ea09de6ad2276c11f",
"text": "I agree with George. I'll also add that you have to think about the cost of melting the coins for their raw materials. Not exactly free in terms of equipment, facilities and energy costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32fc8c8e41faa740aaa9a8f0a80711df",
"text": "The collectible value of coins will probably increase with the underlying metal value. I'd collect coins for that reason and because I enjoy collecting them. I wouldn't recommend buying bags of rolled nickels or anything though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21ce3d99e19e2ae4f2a5a37f78b28c81",
"text": "You would have to collect an awful lot to make it profitable. The melting process alone will cost an arm and a leg. Go silver hunting with rolls of Half dollars. You might strike it lucky with rolls of Kennedy's. Its good fun too :) 1964 Kennedy's 90% silver 1965-1970 Kennedy's 40% silver I go looking on ebay collecting for typo errors on pre 1920's British silver coinage. Picked up a George 3rd 1816 Shilling for £3....worth £30....but even if your doing it just for the silver content, you can pick up a real bargain. Just think of how your going to offload them. Here in the UK its easy because there is a huge market for Numismatic coins.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "273ef3ca22682b8150cbe34e9946a2fb",
"text": "The safest financial decisions that you can make in Greece involve getting your money out of Greece. That said, it depends. If the economy is going to implode and you'll be out of the job with devalued savings -- you'll be bankrupt anyway. You didn't mention enough about your situation for anyone to really answer the question. In a high-inflation environment, *if*you have the assets to weather the storm, holding debt on real property and durable goods is a good thing. The key considerations are: If you have the means, times of crisis are great opportunities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4101d422ea1202cbc43ffd2a8abbf0",
"text": "Are you going to South Africa or from? (Looking on your profile for this info.) If you're going to South Africa, you could do worse than to buy five or six one-ounce krugerrands. Maybe wait until next year to buy a few; you may get a slightly better deal. Not only is it gold, it's minted by that country, so it's easier to liquidate should you need to. Plus, they go for a smaller premium in the US than some other forms of gold. As for the rest of the $100k, I don't know ... either park it in CD ladders or put it in something that benefits if the economy gets worse. (Cheery, ain't I? ;) )",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd73aefd86f04d3f7c589c41e3bfbaff",
"text": "I'm currently using ecns to trade odd lot taxables. However, this is a market that some days produces big returns and some days the faucet is barely dripping. The constant uncertainly and having to go to work everyday to hunt is awesome but at the same time rather questionable in the long run. Any suggestions? I'm also looking to raise my current take home.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfde7f9b43df2af566599c0879099552",
"text": "\"If it were me, I would convert it to cash and keep it in a liquid account. The assumption that silver will increase in value is misguided. From 1985 to 2002, it was flat. It's gone up and been far more volatile since then, and there has been significant declines which could eat at the stability of an emergency fund. Precious metals are speculation, not investing. They do not create wealth. Investing is typically considered too volatile for an emergency fund, more so keeping the money in metals. Making it more difficult to get to, like keeping it in a separate account might also fight against frivolous or accidental spending. Also there tends to be high transaction costs when liquidating metals. I found the best way is to use eBay. After some further comments and clarification here I suspect you are dealing with something else. Namely, the \"\"white picket fence\"\". Again, this is supposition, but perhaps she envisions the two of you married and hosting a dinner party using the passed down silver. This could be a strong emotional bond, and as such it could trump the logical arguments. Keeping it as an emergency fund: foolish. You helping her keep it because you are planning a life together: smart.\"",
"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": "a8d75b5d03d74f8da3440e5ed9fe436b",
"text": "\"Penny stocks are for the real gambler. Don't even think about holding them long. Buy a lot of shares and profit from a penny uptick. Rake a hundred dollars here and there a few times a week if you can. Don't fall in love with it. Trade for profit. Don't bet the farm. Only play what you can afford to lose at the Great Casino in the sky (the stock market). Sure, you will pick some losers, but you are not married to it, you don't have to keep it. A couple of good winners will erase some loses. Having lost thousands on the Blue Chips, and feeling I have wasted time waiting for an annual $100 gain on an ETF or mutual if I get lucky, has made me more risk tolerant for these \"\"BAD\"\" investments. The \"\"GOOD\"\" investments should do so well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60ffa361e82383d97a64f6286ec69ad5",
"text": "\"I would be wary of having coins in containers with cardboard. Ideally you want the coins to be in an airtight envelope made of plastic to minimize any chance of oxidation or reaction with chemicals in the air. Cheap, retail coins like you would find in a Whitman collection are not generally going to hold value well. Sometimes you can sell a collection and break even if you have a nice complete set, but in general VF coins with common dates will not appreciate at all. Investment coins usually are high-priced items that sell for thousands each, not the sort thing you find in Whitman folders. In general, collectibles are bad investments in the US because IRS rules tax gains as ordinary income. So, unless you sell them under the table or have really low income, you lose a lot of your profit. If you enjoy collecting, focus on the fun of it, worrying about investment in coin collections is a joy killer. A Parting Anecdote... When I was a kid I painstakingly assembled a lot of BU rolls, because that was the hot thing back then. I wrote on them \"\"DO NOT OPEN FOR 10 YEARS\"\". You know how much a 1980 BU roll of Lincoln cents is worth now, 40 years later? $2.00 on eBay. Some days I spend more on lunch than the worth of my entire Lincoln cent collection.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "18d75b8742bef1ec9535145e323209d9",
"text": "\"If the \"\"crash\"\" you worry about is a dissolution of the euro, then the main thing you should concern yourself with is liquidity. For that, purchase the most highly liquid gold ETF or futures contract, whichever is more appropriate for the total amount of money involved. Any other way and you will lose a significant chunk of your assets to transaction costs. If, on the other hand, the \"\"crash\"\" you were concerned about were the total collapse of the world economy, and people around the world abandon all paper currencies and resort to barter as a method of trade, then I can see buying several small pieces being a rational strategy, although then I would also question whether you were a sane individual.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e4bf9d247623ce514a12a958cb59e780",
"text": "\"This sound like a very bad idea. If you invest exclusively in silver, your investment is not diversified in any way. This is what I would call risky. Have a look at index funds and ETFs and build a diversified portfolio. It does not take much time, and you don't need to let it do by someone else. They are risky too, but I see \"\"silver only\"\" as much riskier. You reduce the risk by holding on to the funds for a long time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3dd91d6bdcbb96ba3d298a9e1793054",
"text": "No. Supply takes 5yrs to come on line from planting to harvesting. The issue on the supply side has been twofold: 1) vanilla bean prices have been falling for some time so many farmers switched to other crops, 2) 50%+ of all vanilla bean is grown in Madasgar, which experienced a typhoon, which damaged a bunch of the existing crop. On the demand side, people are switching from artificial flavoring to more natural ingredients, which actually taste much better too. So, there's a significant demand/supply imbalance which will utilitmately correct but it could take a long time to do so. My problem is figuring out a viable shorting mechanism as the commodity is not publicly traded and the timeframe is long",
"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": "6bf437514ade59fb8744135e52adbfb3",
"text": "No. The US manufactures more goods than any other country, and only China is close. However, instead of making clothes, the US makes higher value items, like medical equipment. The impression that manufacturing is dead in the US is because of this, and because manufacturing has become highly automated, so there are far fewer manufacturing jobs than there were in the past.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3414a9831fe266b28d86c9ca5e4cadd5",
"text": "I've read the answers and respect the thought behind them. I'd like to focus on (a) the magnitude of the emergency, and (b) the saving rate of the people affected. 3-6 months is interesting. It's enough not just to fix the car, repair the A/C, etc, but more than enough to lose one's job and recover. (Let's avoid the debate of how long it take to find a job, no amount of 'emergency savings' can solve that.) If one is spending below their means, any unexpected expense that can paid off within, say 3 months, doesn't really need to tap emergency funds (EF). And, at some level of income and retirement savings, one can more easily run a much lower EF. My own situation - I had 9mo worth of expenses saved as EF. We were living well beneath our means, and I was looking at the difference between our mortgage (6%+) vs bank interest (near 0%). I used the funds to pay down principal, refinanced to a lower rate, and at the same closing got a HELOC. The psychology of this is tough, it then appears that for simple expenses, I'd be borrowing from my HELOC. On the other hand, the choice was between a known cost, the $5K/year the money was costing by sitting there plus the lower rate by going to a non-jumbo loan at the time, vs the risk of using 3% money from the HELOC. In the end, the HELOC was never tapped for more than a small portion of its line, and I never regretted the decision. Ironically, it's the person who isn't saving much that need the EF most. If you are a saver, you need to judge how long it would take to replace the funds. I offer the above not as a recommendation, but as devil's advocate to the other excellent advice here. All cash flows are a choice, $100 going here, can't go there. I'd slip in a warning that one should capture matching 401(k) contributions, if offered, before funding the EF. And pay down any high interest debt. After that, the decision of how liquid to be is a personal choice, what worked for my wife and me may not be for everyone.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ddeeb18ab2504675e6d0de5b59d233ab
|
Double-entry bookkeeping: How to account for non-monetary taxable benefits received from employer?
|
[
{
"docid": "fd27658674e7d86ccf10bc37cd400f6c",
"text": "\"I can say that I got X dollars from an account like \"\"Income:Benefits\"\"... but where do I credit that money to? \"\"Expenses:Groceries\"\" Yes doesn't feel right, since I never actually spent that money on food, You did, didn't you? You got food. I'm guessing there's an established convention for this already? Doubt it. Established conventions in accounting are for businesses, and more specifically - public companies. So you can find a GAAP, or IFRS guidelines on how to book benefits (hint: salary expense), but it is not something you may find useful in your own household accounting. Do what is most convenient for you. Since it is a double-booking system - you need to have an account on the other side. Expenses:Groceries doesn't feel right? Add Expenses:Groceries:Benefits or Expenses:Benefits or whatever. When you do your expense and cash-flow reports - you can exclude both the income and the expense benefits accounts if you track them separately, so that they don't affect your tracking of the \"\"real\"\" expenses.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b96288340f7a74edaf5cd6401bbece0e",
"text": "All of this assumes that this relationship isn't as employer-employee relationship, which would require you to withhold taxes. If you send them a small token of appreciation, and you are unable to record it as a business expense, or some other deductible expense, you don't have to be concerned about how they claim it. They decide if they want to risk claiming it was a gift, or if they want to record it as an expense. Even if you say some magic phrase that you think will impress the IRS, the recipient can still decide declare it as income. To have any hope of being able to treat it as a gift they would have to be able to demonstrate that there is a non-business relationship. If you can claim it as a business expense, or a deductible expense, they will have to also claim it as income; because your documentation could point the IRS to their lack of documentation. Giving them a check or sending the payment electronically will require them to claim it as an income, since an audit could require them to explain every line on their bank statements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6d0d30fbd25325bcf5393073ef1bf6b",
"text": "\"Taxable fringe benefits are included in taxable wages for the purpose of FLSA. So when those executives get to use company cars or company jets that value is \"\"wage\"\" even if it isn't salary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1071e7137d3521bb67f4701cdadd93d3",
"text": "\"I would say to only bother keeping the ones you know you'll use for itemized deductions. This includes any unreimbursed business expenses and vehicle licensing fees. There are a lot of other itemized tax deductions possible, but those are two common ones. Also, keep track of your business mileage (mileage before and after the trip, and commuting doesn't count as \"\"business mileage\"\"). You may also want to keep receipts of all out-of-state purchases if your state is one of those that tries to collect state tax on out-of-state purchases. Ensure your supported charities are 501(c)(3), and they'll give you a receipt at the end of the year. Don't bother keeping fast food or gas receipts (unless they're business expenses).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ff0e9f98da1ef2abf5cdf90973fb1c",
"text": "\"The bank \"\"credit's\"\" your account for money coming into it. In double entry accounting, you always have a debit and a credit to balance the accounts. As an Example: for $500 that the bank credited to your checking account, you would post a debit to Cash and a Credit to Income Earned. The accounting equation is: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity $500 = $500 Cash is the \"\"Asset\"\" side of the equation, Income is part of Owner's Equity, and so is the Credit side... to make the equation balanced.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3381ce2d3d30afc976df6a0006e9a85",
"text": "\"The P11D is a record of the total benefits you've received in a tax year that haven't been taxed in another way, a bit like the P60 is a record of the total pay and tax you've paid in a tax year. Note that travel for business purposes shouldn't be taxable, and if that's what's being reported on the P11D you may need to make a claim for tax relief to HMRC to avoid having to pay the tax. I'm not sure whether it's normal for such expenses to be reported there. HMRC will normally collect that tax by adjusting your tax code after the P11D is issued, so that more tax is taken off your future income. So you don't need to do anything, as it'll be handled automatically. As to how you know it's accurate, if you have any doubts you'd need to contact your former employer and ask them to confirm the details. In general you ought to know what benefits you actually received so should at least be able to figure out if the number is plausible. If your \"\"travel\"\" was a flight to the USA, then probably it was. If it was a bus ticket, less so :-) If you fill in a tax return, you'll also have to report the amount there which will increase the tax you owe/reduce your refund. You won't be charged twice even if your tax code also changes, as the tax return accounts for the total amount of tax you've already paid. For travel benefits, the exact treatment in relation to tax/P11Ds is summarised here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a55590f255c2b3d24ffece099c5370f3",
"text": "Hence new employer pays a part of the salary as per diem compensation along with regular salary and says that per-diem compensation is non-taxable. Per-diem is not taxable. But that is not what you're describing. It appears that either you or the prospective employer, misunderstood what per-diem is. As per US law is it legally allowed non taxable per diem compensation to employees? Yes. What are the pros and cons of having per diem compensation? Per-diem is not compensation. It is not part of your salary. It is not part of your employment contract. If I have to report my salary to any one like banks, insurance companies, do I need to include Per diem compensation or not? No, because it is not compensation. Back to the first item: Per-diem is paid to you during business trips when you're away from your (tax) home. It is not part of your compensation, and is only allowed for business trips. Contract work on site for any prolonged period of time (1 year or more, as a definitive rule, but can be less) is not a business trip. For that period of time your tax home becomes that location, so you're not away. You're home. You should discuss it with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), but it seems to me that either you misunderstood something, or your prospective employer is trying to evade taxes (both yours and his) by disguising part of your compensation as per-diem. It is very likely that when you get caught, the employer will just issue you 1099 on the amounts and leave you hanging.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edb005ea7461d6a53124407aca06bab5",
"text": "After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9379f5ad0e097a21cb007559a3207893",
"text": "It looks like you can. Take a look at these articles: http://www.googobits.com/articles/1747-taking-an-itemized-deduction-for-job-expenses.html http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/business-expenses-that-benefit-you.aspx http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/employment.html But of course, go to the source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html#en_US_publink100026912 From publication 529: You can deduct certain expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR). You can claim the amount of expenses that is more than 2% of your adjusted gross income. You figure your deduction on Schedule A by subtracting 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total amount of these expenses. Your adjusted gross income is the amount on Form 1040, line 38, or Form 1040NR, line 36. I hope that helps. Happy deducting!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57ecc3cc87544cb382c000d2dd1e6e58",
"text": "One piece of documentation that might help here is a confirmation of your benefit selections through your employer for each year since the expenses in question were incurred, assuming you have a job with eligibility for benefits. If you can prove which accounts you maintained through your/your spouse's (if applicable) employer(s), then it is relatively simple to go back through the records for those specific accounts and see if a specific expense was ever reimbursed. Obviously, you can't prove through documentation that you didn't have accounts that don't exist. This seems like it would be more important for the accounts elected by a significant other, since I believe reimbursements from an account in your name would typically be reported to the IRS on your behalf anyway. Also, keep in mind that the IRS won't care about each line item individually. Their focus will be on whether, for any given snapshot in time, your total reimbursed amount exceeded your total eligible expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0c8d3728efd4fd11889096f3baabf9f",
"text": "\"Your wages are an expense to your employer and are therefore 100% tax deductible in the business income. The company should not be paying tax on that, so your double-tax scenario, as described, isn't really correct. [The phrase \"\"double taxation\"\" with respect to US corporations usually comes into play with dividends. In that case, however, it's the shareholders (owners) that pay double. The answer to \"\"why?\"\" in that case can only be \"\"because it's the law.\"\"]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d137f8ba2fc7c051f2118309f7059b59",
"text": "There is no such thing as double taxation. If you pay tax in the US, you CAN claim tax credits from India tax authority. For example, if you pay 100 tax in USA and your tax liability in India is 200, then you will only pay 100 (200 India tax liability minus 100 tax credits on foreign tax paid in the USA). This is always true and not depending on any treaty. If there is a treaty, the tax rate in the United States is set on the treaty and you CAN claim that final tax rate based upon that treaty. If you operate an LLC, and the income is NOT derived from United States and you have no ties with the US and that LLC is register to a foreign person (not company but a real human) then you will not have to submit tax return in the US... I advice you to read this: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98277,00.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efde1ab1a9035da2874810c95db67d9e",
"text": "\"I think you're on the right track. Your #2 journal entry is incorrect. It should be (I usually put the debit entry on top, but I followed your formatting) I'm assuming your employer uses an accountable reimbursement plan (reimbursing you when you turn in your payment bill/receipts). This is not salary. Reimbursements under the accountable plan in the US are not taxed as income. If you think about it though, \"\"phone expense\"\" isn't really your phone expense. So, instead of #1 entry, you could make an account receivable, or other current asset account, maybe call it Reimbursables - cellphone, and debit this account, and credit your cash account. When you receive the $30 back, you will reverse the entries on the day of payment. If you do it this way, you should be able to see a list of receivables outstanding (I'm not too familiar with GNUCash but I'm sure it has this type of report).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e468951d2762615d46c8acc2c2e2ffd8",
"text": "Someone messed up here. My tax accountant says she is supposed to enter the values as they are on the W2 and CompanyB said they will not issue a new W2 because they were not involved in the refund of the money. Correct. We decided that we will enter a value different from 12b-d, subtract the money that was refunded to me because it's already on the 1099. Incorrect. Is there an alternative to avoid paying taxes twice on the 401k overages? If not, is there a better way to do this to minimize the risk of an audit? You should enter the amounts in W2 as they are. Otherwise things won't tie at the IRS and they will come back asking questions. The amount in box 12-D was deducted from your wages pre-tax, so you didn't pay tax on it. The distribution is taxable, and if it was made before the tax day next year - only taxable once. So if you withdrew the same year of the contribution, as it sounds like you did, you will only pay tax on it once because the amounts were not included in your salary. If the 1099-R is marked with the correct code, the IRS will be able to match the excess contribution (box 12-D) and the removal of the excess contribution (1099-R with the code) and it will all tie, no-one will audit you. The accountant is probably clueless as to how her software works. By default, the accounting software will add the excess contribution on W2 box 12-D back into wages, and it will be added to taxable income on your tax return. However, when you type in the 1099 with the proper code, this should be reversed by the software, and if it is not - should be manually overridden. This should be done at the adjustment entry, not the W2 entry screen, since a copy of the W2 will be transmitted with your tax return and should match the actual W2 transmitted by your employer. If she doesn't know what she's doing, find someone who does.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255ced4517b0b7d6b04e2db97cfaec4c",
"text": "The answer on the Canadian Government's website is pretty clear: Most employees cannot claim employment expenses. You cannot deduct the cost of travel to and from work, or other expenses, such as most tools and clothing. However, that is most likely related to a personal vehicle. There is a deduction related to Public Transportation: You can claim cost of monthly public transit passes or passes of longer duration such as an annual pass for travel within Canada on public transit for 2016. The second sleeping residence is hard to justify as the individual is choosing to work in this town and this individual is choosing to spent the night there - it is not currently a work requirement. As always, please consult a certified tax professional in your country for any final determinations on personal (and corporate) tax laws and filings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c01283ab709a39fc1d09315caffed24",
"text": "The money from the employer is counted as income for you, and should be included in the numbers on your W-2. You also have tuition you paid. That is an educational expense. That would generally be a tax credit if you qualify for those educational tax credits. If the money from the employer was counted as income you can use also claim tuition expenses. If the money wasn't included as income you then can't claim the tuition as an educational expense. My experience has been that expenses such as books have not been covered, but could be paid for with the money from a 529. Money to cover mandatory fees: such as lab fees and a fee that all students must pay can be counted as tuition expenses. Regarding customized books, those are much harder to prove. If you were to count that particular book as a tuition expenses, and were audited, you would have to show them the book to prove it. Most books aren't mandatory. Also if you do want to claim the books as an expense, remember to account for the money that is returned if any are sold back to the bookstore at the end of the term.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4f967615c08bb9c7766fdee4e01afe4a
|
New York State - NY Tax on Foreign Sourced Income for NY Non-Resident
|
[
{
"docid": "af46f9f222b03afc70c4c684572cf355",
"text": "\"For Non-Resident filers, New York taxes New York-sourced income. That includes: real or tangible personal property located in New York State (including certain gains or losses from the sale or exchange of an interest in an entity that owns real property in New York State); services performed in New York State; a business, trade, profession, or occupation carried on in New York State; and a New York S corporation in which you are a shareholder (including installment income from an IRC 453 transaction). There are some exclusions as well. It is all covered in the instructions to form IT-203. However, keep in mind that \"\"filing\"\" as non-resident doesn't make you non-resident. If you spend 184 days or more in New York State, and you have a place to stay there - you are resident. See definitions here. Even if you don't actually live there and consider yourself a CT resident.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7ac96c93bd48428d27dd972865d7dd0a",
"text": "It turns out that in this special case for New York, they have a law that says that if you are changing your filing status from resident to nonresident, you must use the accrual method for calculating capital gains. So in this case, the date on the papers is the important one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "616eeb050776c24607530a993d6be9d5",
"text": "\"New York will want to you to pay taxes on income from \"\"New York sources\"\". I'm not sure what this means to a freelance web developer. If your wife is doing freelance web development under the same business entity as she did in New York (ie. a New York sole proprietor, corporation, etc), you probably do need to file. From nonresident tax form manual: http://tax.ny.gov/pdf/2011/inc/it203i_2011.pdf If you were a nonresident of New York State, you are subject to New York State tax on income you received from New York State sources in 2011. If you were a resident of New York State for only part of 2011, you are subject to New York State tax on all income you received while you were a resident of the state and on income you received from New York State sources while you were a nonresident. To compute the amount of tax due, use Form IT-203, Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return. You will compute a base tax as if you were a full-year resident, then determine the percentage of your income that is subject to New York State tax and the amount of tax apportioned to New York State.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de65a195799a90cbf017660532c71024",
"text": "Multistate Impact of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 In general, states with rolling conformity will follow this change. States with specific date conformity will continue to follow the date of conformity currently in effect and will not follow the change. A few states may have their own QSBS rules and will not conform to or be impacted by this provision of the Act. The chart that follows summarizes these principles as applied to the enumerated states: STATE: QSBS Exclusion Conformity: California statutes refer to the IRC QSBS provisions but modify and limit their applicability, and would not be impacted by this provision of the Act. However, California’s provisions were ruled unconstitutional in recent litigation and the California Franchise Tax Board has recently taken the position that gain exclusions and deferrals will be denied for all open tax years. Florida Florida does not impose an income tax on individuals and therefore this provision of the Act is inapplicable and will have no impact. Illinois Due to its rolling conformity, Illinois follows this provision of the Act. Because New York effectively provides for rolling conformity to the IRC, through reference to federal adjusted gross income as the state starting point, New York effectively follows this provision of the Act. Texas does not impose an income tax on individuals",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ef174b33606cc48292303fe2a920126",
"text": "This is a complicated question that relies on the US-India Tax Treaty to determine whether the income is taxable to the US or to India. The relevant provision is likely Article 15 on Personal Services. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/india.pdf It seems plausible that your business is personal services, but that's a fact-driven question based on your business model. If the online training is 'personal services' provided by you from India, then it is likely foreign source income under the treaty. The 'fixed base' and '90 days' provisions in Article 15 would not apply to an India resident working solely outside the US. The question is whether your US LLC was a US taxpayer. If the LLC was a taxpayer, then it has an obligation to pay US tax on any worldwide income and it also arguably disqualifies you from Article 15 (which applies to individuals and firms of individuals, but not companies). If you were the sole owner of the US LLC, and you did not make a Form 8832 election to be treated as subject to entity taxation, then the LLC was a disregarded entity. If you had other owners, and did not make an election, then you are a partnership and I suspect but cannot conclude that the treaty analysis is still valid. So this is fact-dependent, but you may be exempt from US tax under the tax treaty. However, you may have still had an obligation to file Forms 1099 for your worker. You can also late-file Forms 1099 reporting the nonemployee compensation paid to your worker. Note that this may have tax consequences on the worker if the worker failed to report the income in those years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38ce8853a945c37b03874890c7effc66",
"text": "It essentially works the same. Some states don't have any income taxes at all (like Florida or Wyoming), some only tax income derived in the state, and some tax worldwide income (like New York or California), similarly to the Federal income taxes. However, if you're living abroad (i.e.: you're a citizen or resident of a foreign country and you live there), you're not considered resident by most of the states (check with your state for specific definitions) for most, if not all, the time of your residency abroad. In such case - you don't pay state taxes, only Federal. You have to remember that foreign income exclusion doesn't apply to the income from your 401k, so you pay the taxes as if you're in the US. You can not use foreign taxes credit as well (but depending on the tax treaty with the country you're moving to, your 401k income might not be taxable there). In some cases you may end up with double taxation: US will tax your 401k income as you're a US citizen and the income is derived from the US sources, and the foreign country will tax the income based on its own laws. This is not a tax advice, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d945f60dc70338f915c42b0e43fabc1",
"text": "\"If a person is not a U.S. citizen and they live and work outside the U.S., then any income they make from a U.S. company or person for services provided does not qualify as \"\"U.S. Source income\"\" according to the IRS. Therefore you wouldn't need to worry about withholding or providing tax forms for them for U.S. taxes. See the IRS Publication 519 U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4aa07f26f949b47c07d71acff501526",
"text": "Unfortunately, you are required, but most states do have agreements with neighboring states that let the states share the collected taxes without the person having to pay double taxes. So being as this is your first tax return in your current situation, you might be wise to have a professional fill it out for you this year and then next year you can use it as a template. Additionally, I really would like to see someone challenge this across state lines taxation in court. It sure seems to me that it is a inter-state tariff/duty, which the state's are expressly forbidden from doing in the constitution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "315f44287b4b9fb02ee1ace85ecca3f4",
"text": "According to the Colorado form CY104PN, Colorado taxes income earned while working in or being a resident of the State of Colorado. Assuming you never set foot in the State of Colorado, I read it as if you will only be liable to pay taxes in the State of New York (on all of your income, of course). You can get a more reliable opinion from a Colorado-licensed CPA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a89404183a0ad268890174c0623c23d",
"text": "This question came up again (Living in Florida working remotely - NY employer withholds NYS taxes - Correct or Incorrect?) and the poster on the new version didn't find the existing answers to be adequate, so I'm adding a new answer. NYS will tax this income if the arrangement is for the convenience of the employee. If the arrangement is necessary to complete the work, then you should have no NYS tax. New York state taxes all New York-source salary and wage income of nonresident employees when the arrangement is for convenience rather than by necessity (Laws of New York, § 601(e), 20 NYCRR 132.18). Source: http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2009/jun/20091371.html Similar text can also be found here: http://www.koscpa.com/newsletter-article/state-tax-consequences-telecommuting/ The NYS tax document governing this situation seems to be TSB-M-06(5)I. I looked at this page from NYS that was mentioned in the answer by @littleadv. That language does at first glance seem to lead to a different answer, but the ruling in the tax memo seems to say that if you're out of state only for your convenience then the services were performed in NYS for NYS tax purpose. From the memo: However, any allowance claimed for days worked outside New York State must be based upon the performance of services which of necessity, as distinguished from convenience, obligate the employee to out-of- state duties in the service of his employer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3b95031eb506b30bf9d5cc055cbaba9",
"text": "You should consult a US CPA to ensure your situation is handled correctly. It appears, the money is Israel source income and not US source income regardless if you receive it while living in the U.S. If you file the correct form, I suspect the form is 1040NR and your state form to disclose your income, if any, in 2015 and 2016, it should not be a problem. Having said that, if you do earn any type of income while in the U.S. , you are required to disclose it to both the IRS and state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22b5a58c9b402f5d89f7f3c5801e101a",
"text": "Hi u/Sagiv1, Short answer: Yes, you do have to pay taxes in Israel for all your worldincome. Long answer: All countries within the OCDE consider you as a fiscal resident in the country where you spend over half a year in (183 days and up). If you do not spend that much time in any country, there are other tying measures to avoid people not being fiscal residents in any country. Since you are living in Israel, you will have to pay all your worlwide generated income in Israel, following the tax regulation that is in place there. I am no Isarely Tax Lawyer so I cannot help you there. Having a lot of business internationally brings other headaches with it. Taking for example the U.S. there is a possibility that they withold taxes in their payments. It is unlikely, though, as they have a Tax Treaty to prevent double taxation. You can ask for this witholded money to be returned from the U.S. or other countries through each country's internal process. Another thing to take into account is that you can be taxed in other countries for any revenue you generate in said country. This is especially relevant for revenue that comes from Real Estate. The country where the real estate is will tax you in the country and you will have to deduct these taxes paid in your country, Israel in this case. If there is no tax treaty you might possibly be paying twice. I know you said you do promotion, but I have to warn you about this, because I ignore what other countries tax or do not tax. So been giving more info won't hurt. If the US is the main and/or only country you will be doing business with, I strongly recommend you real the Tax treaty with lots of love and patience. You can find it here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/israel.pdf or here: Treaty:http://mfa.gov.il/Style%20Library/AmanotPdf/005118.pdf Amendment: http://mfa.gov.il/Style%20Library/AmanotPdf/005120.pdf If you are from Israel and prefer it in Hebrew, here are the treaties in your language: Treaty: http://mfa.gov.il/Style%20Library/AmanotPdf/005119.pdf Amendment: http://mfa.gov.il/Style%20Library/AmanotPdf/005121.pdf Normally most IRS Departments have sections with very uselful help on these sort of matters. I'd recomment you to take a look at yours. Last, what I've explained is the normal process that applies almost all over the world. But each country has their own distinctions and you need to look carefully. Take what I said as a starting point and do your own research or ideally try to find a tax consultant/lawyer who helps you. Best of luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eb1a478c19f1e107212313733892c40",
"text": "From my research it looks like its an income NOT effectively connected with the trade of business. This page has the exact details https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/effectively-connected-income-eci",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79702816dfe3554f3eae54d04ca87ae3",
"text": "I suggest you talk to a New York-licensed tax adviser (EA or NY-licensed CPA). New York is very aggressive when it comes to residency determination, and given your facts and circumstances you may end up being considered NY resident despite relocating to Florida. If you maintain a studio in NY, I'd say 99% chance is that you remain NY resident for the whole year (but verify with a professional).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e20a9c8c36738492aa0363c1113b6ca9",
"text": "\"I'm working on similar problem space. There seems to be some working ambiguity in this space - most focus seems to be on more complex cases of income like Dividends and Capital Gains. The US seems to take a position of \"\"where the work was performed\"\" not \"\"where the work was paid\"\" for purposes of the FEIE. See this link. The Foreign Tax Credit(FTC) is applied (regardless of FEIE) based on taxes paid in the other Country. In the event you take the FEIE, you need to exclude that from the income possible to claim on the FTC. i.e. (TOTAL WAGES(X) - Excluded Income) There is a weird caveat on TOTAL WAGES(X) that says you can only apply the FTC to foreign-sourced income which means that potentially we are liable for the on-US-soil income at crazy rates. See this link.. Upon which... there is probably not a good answer short of writing your congressperson.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31abacd665512fee2feb11e369758173",
"text": "Is this money taxable in US? From what you described you're likely to have been a US tax resident. As such, you're taxed on your worldwide income. Foreign tax deferral schemes are not considered qualified under the US law (unless a treaty says otherwise), so you're liable for taxes on them now. Get a new tax adviser.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0cd74444c1fbeb322f14061b944c43bc
|
Am I responsible for an annual fee on a credit card I never picked up?
|
[
{
"docid": "a392c011248bfa89fdd117b889264956",
"text": "Have you signed anything? If not - then tell them you don't know who they are and have not agreed to pay. If you did sign that piece of paper at the airport, then you have probably agreed to pay. Either way, it won't go away. As you've already discovered, ignoring things doesn't make them go away. You should make an effort, as hard as it may be, and call them. Notify them that you have never asked for this card, never activated it, and in fact never had it in your possession. You should stress out that it was issued without your authorization, which is probably illegal. And you wish the account to be closed and the charge reversed. Otherwise it will just grow and make your life miserable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13bc98e71c69c235a42946eeb41a8cec",
"text": "In the end, I was not required to pay the fee. After some frustrating initial attempts, I ended up writing a letter and sending a copy to card services, customer support, complaints and the legal department. It basically said: 1 - I never signed anything. 2 - I spoke to a very aggressive person at the airport who told me that she was just taking down my information in order to send information about the card, and that I was under no obligation 3 - I never received a card, activated a card, or used a card. 4 - I want this charge canceled immediately 5 - If this ever shows up on my credit report, I will contact my lawyer regarding this unscrupulous business practice. After that I received a notice in the mail confirming that everything had been cancelled and all charges were reversed.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c20932e982311b1eb7c0ae28931d70f1",
"text": "They don't make any money off of you personally. They make money off of the merchants per transaction when you use the card. You trigger this fee to the credit card issuer, but it doesn't come out of your pocket. (Or it shouldn't; merchants aren't allowed to pass this fee on to you.) They keep you around because you may at some point become less responsible than you already are, and it would be quite costly to get you back (a couple hundred dollars is the cost of acquiring a new credit card customer). People who are less responsible than you subsidize your free float and your rewards (if any) but the new CARD act makes it more difficult for people to use their cards irresponsibly, so these perks that you enjoy will get less perky with time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "202cf175509a021a1050b9735f8505b3",
"text": "\"You have a subscription that costs $25 They have the capabilities to get that $25 from the card on file if you had stopped paying for it, you re-upping the cost of the subscription was more of a courtesy. They would have considered pulling the $25 themselves or it may have gone to collections (or they could courteously ask if you wanted to resubscribe, what a concept) The credit card processing agreements (with the credit card companies) and the FTC would handle such business practices, but \"\"illegal\"\" wouldn't be the word I would use. The FTC or Congress may have mandated that an easy \"\"opt-out\"\" number be associated with that kind of business practice, and left it at that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "124a7559d759034f5828fc5f1f86b9c3",
"text": "I think you are not liable for unauthorized charges (on your card) no matter how the number was lost. Most banks now apply a $0 liability for card losses. Some say they use the $50 per day (legal) liability limit but I have never heard of any actually applying it to their customers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "946ea126eae0ed43396aa7a733be9258",
"text": "From accounting perspective, an unpaid bill for internet services, according to the Accruals Concept, is recorded as a liability under 'Current Liabilities' section of the Balance Sheet. Also as an expense on the Income Statement. So to answer your question it is both: a debt and an expense, however this is only the case at the end of the period. If you manage to pay it before the financial period ends this is simply an expense that is financed by cash or other liquid Asset on the Balance Sheet such as prepayment for example. For private persons you are generally given some time to pay the bill so it is technically a debt (Internet Provider would list you as a debtor on their accounts), but this is not something to worry about unless you are not considering to pay this bill. In which case your account may be sold as part of a factoring and you will then have a debt affecting your credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e4bd0df6b853cc0f04744a6b8f39f76",
"text": "The cost to the store is small. They may have to pay a slightly greater fee because the transaction is now bigger. They do need additional cash on hand. Even though the majority of transactions are electronic (credit/debit) or check, the local grocery store still seems to have significant cash on hand. This is seen as a customer service. If there is a 2% fee the $50 advance costs them $1 for the minority of customers that take advantage of it. After more than 10 years of doing this they have figured this into the cost of groceries. Of course the credit card company could also waive the fee to store. My credit card online statement does tell me how much cash back was received. The line says date, store, amount ($40.00 cash over and $123.45 purchases) $163.45 total. Therefore the credit card company knows that cash back was used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cebe28aaf1d92268406cce90949a468",
"text": "\"What would be the consequences if they do realize their error some day in the far future? You've informed them of the error and they've informed you that nevertheless the points are yours and you should use them. So you have a couple of issues: have you made what your jurisdiction considers a reasonable effort to correct the mistake, and did the customer service rep actually have the authority to make such a large goodwill gesture as letting you keep all the points? The first is your legal responsibility (otherwise you're stealing), and you need to know specifically for your jurisdiction whether a phone call is sufficient. I can't tell you that. Maybe you should send them a letter, maybe you should wait until you've had written confirmation from them, maybe you're OK as you are. You might be able to get free advice from some body that helps with consumer issues (here in the UK you could ask Citizen's Advice). The second is beyond your ability to know for sure but it's not dishonest to work on the basis that what the company's proper representative tells you, is true. With the usual caveats that I'm not qualified to give legal advice: once told you've been clearly told that it's an intentional gift, I don't see any way you could be held to have done anything fraudulent if you then go about enjoying it. The worst case \"\"far future\"\" problem, I would expect, is that someone decides the gift was never legitimately made in the first place. In other words the company made two separate errors, first crediting the card and then telling you the erroneous points stand. In that case you might have to pay them back whatever you've spent on the card (beyond the points you're entitled to). To avoid this you'd need to establish what constitutes a binding gift in your jurisdiction, so that you can say \"\"no, the point balance was not erroneous and here's the legal reason why\"\", and pay them nothing. You might also need to consider any tax implications in receiving such a large gift, and of course before paying tax on it (if that's necessary) you'd probably want to bug them for confirmation in writing that it really is yours. If that written confirmation isn't forthcoming then so be it, they've rescinded the gift and I doubt you're inclined to take them to court demanding that they stand by the words of their rep. Use them and play stupid. It's not my duty to check their math, right? That's potentially fraud or theft if you lie. You did notice, and even worse they have proof you noticed since you made the call. So never say you didn't notice. If you hadn't called them (yet), then you've been given something in error, and your jurisdiction will have an opinion on what your responsibilities are. So if you hadn't already called them, I would strongly suggest that you should call them or write to them about it to give them the opportunity to correct the error, or at least seek assurance that in your jurisdiction all errors in the customer's favour are final. Otherwise you're in the position of them accidentally handing you their wallet without realising, and you deciding to keep it without telling them. My guess is, that's unlikely to be a legally binding gift, and might legally be theft or fraud on your part.\"",
"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": "d7f7965817f9d5ab9f5b01d3e16284d6",
"text": "\"Aside from an annual fee, if any, the card issuer makes money 2 ways, the transaction fee, about 1.5%-2% charged to the merchant, and interest from you if you leave a balance month to month. Obviously, the bank has some cost in processing statements and maintaining your account. If up front you are saying you will not have any chance of providing a certain profit level, they may have no interest in your business. (As you updated.) Other card issuers (almost surely with fees) might. Put the cards on ice. A bag of water in freezer. Don't be so hasty that you ding your report this way. By trashing the history as well as utilization, you may impact your score enough to do some harm if you actually need credit in the near future. I know this is a game with the credit agencies, a \"\"how good a borrower am I\"\" game, but it can really impact your bottom line if you don't play along. In reply to Michael's comment 1/5/15, if I have one card and am budgeted for $1000/mo in spending, in order to keep utilization down to less than 20%, I'd need a line of more than $5000. Even if I ignore utilization, my January spending is $1000, but the bill is cut on the 31st and not due till Feb 25th. So a line of nearly $2000 is required unless you wish to make mid cycle payments on an ongoing basis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22d806018b64100f766b4cb2237967d7",
"text": "That transaction probably cost the merchant $0.50 + 3% or close to $5. They should have refunded your credit card so they could have recouped some of the fees. (I imagine that's why big-box retailers like Home Depot always prefer to put it back on your card than give you store credit) Consider yourself lucky you made out with $0.15 this time. (Had they refunded your card, the 1% of $150 credit would have gone against next month's reward) Once upon a time folks were buying money from the US Mint by the tens of thousands $ range and receiving credit card rewards, then depositing the money to pay it off.. They figured that out and put a stop to it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c56eecd115666a2bebbdd867a2978a7c",
"text": "I've got cards with no annual fee that don't get used--I never see a bill from them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc9e6fa705358329c493d5f29d33399b",
"text": "\"Why would you consider it null and void? It might be that something went wrong and the business \"\"lost\"\" the transaction one way or another. It might be something else. It might never appear. It might appear. In one of the questions a while ago someone posted a link of a story where an account was overdrawn because of a forgotten debit card charge that resurfaced months later. Can't find the link right now, but it can definitely happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80db529624e3b9dfb606947b708cf1bb",
"text": "You'll need to read all the fine print with your particular credit card, but in general, if there is no annual fee and you don't make any purchases, you don't pay anything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b9c3c47e68ecaa8875897f2d933960a",
"text": "If the card has a credit limit of more than $6,000, then sure, someone can rack up that much in charges. Charges on a regular credit card are an unsecured loan, so having the money on deposit isn't necessary. But if what you said is true, your friend has had his identity stolen. Here are some steps he should take. Whether you loan him money (or believe him) are separate questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6af3c71153cd6f76bcfda075408eb03d",
"text": "It is barely possible that this is Citi's fault, but it sounds more like it is on the Costco end. The way that this is supposed to work is that they preauthorize your card for the necessary amount. That reserves the payment, removing the money from your credit line. On delivery, they are supposed to capture the preauthorization. That causes the money to transfer to them. Until that point, they've reserved your payment but not actually received it. If you cancel, then they don't have to pay processing fees. The capture should allow for a larger sale so as to provide for tips, upsells, and unanticipated taxes and fees. In this case, instead of capturing the preauthorization, they seem to have simply generated a new transaction. Citi could be doing something wrong and processing the capture incorrectly. Or Costco could be doing a purchase when they should be doing a capture. From outside, we can't really say. The thirty days would seem to be how long Costco can schedule in advance. So the preauthorization can last that long for them. Costco should also have the ability to cancel a preauthorization. However, they may not know how to trigger that. With smaller merchants, they usually have an interface where they can view preauthorizations and capture or cancel them. Costco may have those messages sent automatically from their system. Note that a common use for this pattern is with things like gasoline or delivery purchases. If this has been Citi/Costco both times, I'd try ordering a pizza or some other delivery food and see if they do it correctly. If it was Citi both times and a different merchant the other time, then it's probably a Citi problem rather than a merchant problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a0ca13945e1a243ff19881143e14582",
"text": "\"I gather from your mention of \"\"stamp duty\"\" that you're in Britain? I'm only familiar with US cards, but for them I can't see that there is any reason (other than a lack of self-discipline) not to use a credit card wherever possible, especially these days. 1) There are plenty of cards with no annual fee. 2) You get anywhere from 1-5% discount/cash back on purchases. 3) Many will give you sign-up bonuses, and a year or more of zero interest. (So you put that money in your investment account, and odds are you make a profit on it.) 4) Even after the introductory 0% interest period, you get on average about a month of 0% interest between purchase and due date, during which period the money can be earning interest for you. I've made a good many thousands of dollars over the years doing this. Again, the only drawback I can see is that you may not have the self-discipline to pay off the accounts before they start charging interest.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0bdf59843f3fe921677bbca060c51fa0
|
Buying a building with two flats, can I rent one out and still get a residential mortgage?
|
[
{
"docid": "13e534a38f08621aef55efbc3f071620",
"text": "It depends on the terms of the mortgage. Generally speaking, residential mortgages specifically prohibit letting out a property without the bank's express permission -- but as you say, that tends to assume that the whole property is being let, not just a part of it. Conversely, buy-to-let mortgages generally prohibit living in the property yourself! The final arbiter as to what is allowed under a mortgage is the mortgage provider; so the safest option is to speak to one or more banks, and see what they say. (Note that if you're changing the use of part of a property from business to residential, you may need to apply for permission; check with your local council.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7978e0382f7ec74eeb2ff9356352751",
"text": "I'd talk to a solicitor and see if you can structure the purchase in a way that breaks the property into three pieces. One would be the freehold of the whole building, one would be a long lease on the downstairs part (on which you would get a residential mortgage) and one would be a long lease on the upstairs flat (on which you would get a buy-to-let mortgage). Since there's essentially no price premium for freehold as opposed to long lease, you should be able to raise enough money from the two mortgages to fund the purchase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24d27d57f0294cef060793e5d19c2702",
"text": "NO Even worse, most BTL(buy to let) lenders will not lend if you are going to be living in the property. There are very few lenders that will touch something like this. It is likely you will also need to use bridging for the time the building work takes at something like 1.5% per month! Try posting the question to http://www.propertytribes.com/ as there are a few UK mortgage experts on that site.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "669d187e2d8ad7563511763431a511af",
"text": "The simple answer is to get a residential mortgage first, and once you have secured the loan, do whatever you want. The bank only cares about what risk they are taking on the day of closing and won't care afterwards so long as you pay the mortgage on time. Residential mortgages are going to give you better rates than rentals, generally.",
"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": "352c25ab4c52da36ab4f18847e5dac52",
"text": "\"It doesn't make a lot of sense to buy a house/condo and rent it out now. On the other hand, I think finishing your basement and then renting it out is an excellent idea. The ROR is excellent as long as you can deal with the \"\"strangers\"\" in the basement, have the extra driveway space and negative association with renting out your basement. HTH\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78073fba775581c025e7fb35c48e3db3",
"text": "I don't know enough about taxes and real-state in the Netherlands to be super helpful in determining whether or not a rental property is a good investment. One thing for certain is that there's some risk in spending everything on a rental property. It's wise to have some buffer, an emergency fund of 3-6 months expenses. If things got dire, you'd still need to live somewhere until your tenant was gone, and you'd want to be able to handle any major repairs that crop up. So, even if it is a good idea to buy a rental property, you should probably wait until doing so doesn't leave you without a healthy buffer. As for owning a rental, you described a scenario where you'd get 6% income on your investment each year if there were zero expenses associated with owning the property. Are there property taxes? Is there a monthly cost to maintain the building the apartment is in? Are rental incomes taxed more heavily than other investment income? Just be aware of the full financial picture before deciding if it's a worthwhile investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84884f32ad061129295dd2d49b720dd1",
"text": "In my experience buy-to-let mortgages charge a higher rate of interest than an personal residential mortgage. They are regarded as a business enterprise and presumably the banks calculate that they carry a higher risk. A bank would probably take action if the property on an ordinary mortgage was rented out, as you would be breaking their terms. Policies could be rendered void. The terms on an ordinary mortgage disallow renting out the property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a8f1abce7f1bb4e2585da25dee8fb6b",
"text": "You should absolutely go for it, and I encourage you to look for multi-unit (up to 4) properties if there are any in your area. With nulti-unit properties it is far more common than not that the other units pay the mortgage. To comment on your point about slowly building an asset if the renter covers the payment; that's true, but you're also missing the fact that you get to write off the interest on your income taxes, that's another great benefit. If you intend to make a habit out of being a landlord, I highly encourage you to use a property management company. Most charge less than 10% and will handle all of the tough stuff for you, like: fielding sob stories from tenants, evicting tenants, finding new tenants, checking to make sure the property is maintained... It's worth it. There fees are also tax-deductible... It makes a boat load of sense. Just look at the world around you. How many wealthy people rent??? I've met one, but they own investment properties though...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95eb20ad4d8b177f6dcec3183a702b99",
"text": "There's nothing wrong with it. Living in a two-family house and renting the downstairs was a fairly standard path to the middle class and home ownership in the 20th century. Basically, if market conditions are good, you'll have someone else paying your mortgage. The disadvantage of the situation is that you're a landlord. So you have to deal with your tenant, who is also a neighbor. Most tenants are fine, but the occasional difficult person may come out of the woodwork. That model of achieving home ownership became less popular in the late 60's-early 70's when the law allowed two incomes to be used for mortgage underwriting. Also, as suburbanization became a national trend, absentee landlords became more common Sounds like you are in the right place at the right time, and have stumbled into a good deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bf65001c063594bdc70a9d5a0562c5b",
"text": "\"that would deprive me of the rental income from the property. Yes, but you'd gain by not paying the interest on your other mortgage. So your net loss (or gain) is the rental income minus the interest you're paying on your home. From a cash flow perspective, you'd gain the difference between the rental income and your total payment. Any excess proceeds from selling the flat and paying off the mortgage could be saved and use later to buy another rental for \"\"retirement income\"\". Or just invest in a retirement account and leave it alone. Selling the flat also gets rid of any extra time spent managing the property. If you keep the flat, you'll need a mortgage of 105K to 150K plus closing costs depending on the cost of the house you buy, so your mortgage payment will increase by 25%-100%. My fist choice would be to sell the flat and buy your new house debt-free (or with a very small mortgage). You're only making 6% on it, and your mortgage payment is going to be higher since you'll need to borrow about 160k if you want to keep the flat and buy a $450K house, so you're no longer cash-flow neutral. Then start saving like mad for a different rental property, or in non-real estate retirement investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04bc38af33a77e553afb790380e0d30b",
"text": "You seem to underestimate the risk of this deal for the inverstors. A person purchasing a residence is happy to pay $70K instead of $150K now, and the only risk they take is that the construction company fails to build the condo. Whatever happens on the estate market in two years, they still saved the price difference between the price of complete apartments and to-be-build apartments (which by the way may be less than $150K-$70K, since that $150K is the price on a hot market in two years). However, an investor aiming to earn money counts on that the property will actually cost $150K in two years, so he's additionally taking the risk that the estate market may drop. Should that happen, their return on investment will be considerably lower, and it's entirely possible they will make a loss instead of a profit. At this point, this becomes yet another high risk investment option, like financing a startup.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f730beb1a1976bc6e03c56f50c55361",
"text": "It depends what rate mortgage you can get for any extra loans... If you remortgage you are likely to get a rate of 3.5-4%... depending who you go with. With deposit accounts in the UK maying around 1% (yes, you can get more by tying it up for longer but not a huge amount more) clearly you're better off not having a mortgage rather than money in the bank. Does your 8k income allow for tax? If it does, you are getting 6% return on the money tied up in the flat. If you are getting 6% after tax on the invested money, that's way better than you would get on any left over cash paid into an investment. Borrowing money on a mortgage would cost you less than 6%... so you are better off borrowing rather than selling the flat. If you are getting 6% before tax... depending on your tax rate... it probably makes very little difference. You'd need to work out how much an extra 80k mortgage would cost you, how much the 50k on deposit would earn you and how much you make after tax. There is a different route. Set up a mortgage on the rental flat. You can claim the interest payment off the flat's income... reduce your tax bill so the effective mortgage rate on the flat would be less than what you could get with a mortgage on the new house. Use the money from the flat's mortgage to finance the difference in house price. In fact from a tax view, you may be better off having a mortgage free house and maxing out the mortgage on the flat so you can write off as much as possible against your tax bill. All of the above assume ... that the flat is rented all the time. The odd dry spell on the flat could influence the sums a lot. All of the above assume that your cash flow works whichever route you choose. As no-one on stack exchange has all of the numbers for your specific circumstances it may be worth talking to a tax accountant. They could advise you properly, knowing the numbers, which makes the best sense for you in terms of overall cost, cash flow, risk and so on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "948379606960b55844f32a5e29b472d4",
"text": "\"Do you want to split expenses of the new apartment, or split your income/assets equally too (as for instance with a marriage where no sort of \"\"yours, mine, and ours\"\" are split out)? I'm going to assume you have beliefs similar to me in my answer, in that you desire to split expenses of the new place but don't suddenly want to split all of your assets and income 50/50 too. So here's how I'd approach this. I am somewhat unsure of what you mean by \"\"living expenses\"\" for your flat. Does this mean the cost of ownership per month - what it takes to not get rid of the place - and no portion of this is interest/mortgage? To make the calculations a little simpler, I'll assume that all the money you pay out as expenses is just gone - none of it remains as equity or is dis-proportionally accumulating value in some other such way. So, you move in with your girlfriend. The cost for her place - the place itself, taxes, utilities, whatever - is 7892 per month. So since you are both getting equal use of the place, you would split this into 3946 per month for each of you. That's it. Well, I don't see how that really matters at all, anymore than if you owned a company or stocks and bonds. If you rent it out for less per month than it costs you, I don't see why your girlfriend should take any part of the loss. Conversely if you make more money per month than it costs you, that is your investment profit - the payment you get for owning the apartment and dealing with renting it out. Now if your girlfriend is going to partner with you in handling renting out the apartment you own and you want to look at this as an investment partnership, then you should pay all expenses out of the income first and then you can split the profit if you really want. One question to ask would be, what if you just sold your apartment completely? Would you give your girlfriend have the money from the sale? If not then I don't see why you would split the investment profit from holding on to the place. While this is what I recommend and would feel comfortable with personally and if the situation was reversed (and it was my girlfriend that owned a place and was moving in with me), ultimately this is about your personal values, beliefs, and relationship. You are very wise to seek something that both of you will find fair, and so you should discuss a proposed arrangement with your girlfriend and see if you are on the same page. If you are both fine with the agreement and feel OK with it, then great - none of us have to like or agree with it, because we aren't a part of your relationship. Psychologically and financially this situation seems the most reasonable to me, but YMMV. After some more thought and from comments, I realize that it's probably best to explore a few possibilities numerically. So I'll run a few sets of numbers which may help pick which one is right for your relationship. This is approximately the same as paying her \"\"rent\"\" for getting to live with her. You pay her for sharing her place, splitting the expense: 3946 paid to you. She pays the other 3946 for her place. Financially it's like being room-mates. You can do whatever you want with your place - rent or sell, hold on to it for security, etc. This deal makes your girlfriend financially better off by 3946. The financial advantage to you is wholly dependent on what you do with your place. This option would give you each the most financial independence, which is why I like it - but you might be keen on being more interdependent. Which leads us to the next option. Here you behave as before in splitting her expenses, but you include renting out your place as part of the deal. Let's say you get 10k a month for it. You pay the expenses on that place from the rent, then you have 2108 left as 'profit'. You split the profits monthly 1054 to each of you. There's a bit of problem here, though - what happens when the place is vacant? Do you share the full expense of the rent, so she'd actually be paying you each month while it sits open? What about repairs, taxes (costs and credits), etc? I would recommend instead what you do, if you go this way, to account for the apartment as an investment and don't pay out ANY of the profits right away. All rents stay in their own account, and you pay expenses from that same account. For you both it's like it doesn't exist, accept it is a nice earning asset. When you decide it has accumulated more than enough to pay for itself and has enough money to cover vacancy, repairs, etc, then when you pull out money for the duration you are together you just pay it out to both of you equally. You might also pull this \"\"equity\"\" out and spend it on something for both of you, like a nice vacation, etc - something you both enjoy, so you are still sharing the profits. I don't object to this, and it could be a nice arrangement. I would only note that this makes you have a personal relationship, you live together as roommates, and now you are co-landlords/business partners. That's a lot of types of relationships, and I can tell you from personal experience each type has it's own stresses - and this sort of stress can stack (or if you don't handle it well, multiply). So just make sure you are both clear what sort of responsibility you are really both signing up for up front, and what you'd do if you part. Combine your apartment expenses, which would equal 14753, so that's 7376 cost to each of you a month. If you rent your place then whatever money you get you split, and whatever costs come up (repairs, cleaning, etc) you would also split. So if you get an average of 10000 a month for the apartment you each are paying living expenses of 2376 total. But notice that this isn't exactly equal, either. You will pay 5516 less per month than you are now, and she will pay 4485 less than she was before. There's nothing morally wrong with this or anything - it's a 100% partnership across the board. Yet advantage is still not equal - you actually will see a larger benefit to your budget than she will. But if you seek equal benefit, you will have to pay 515 a month more than she does. This sort of thing is basically the model marriage uses, a pure 50/50 partnership, or \"\"communal property\"\". And note that one of you will either be paying more than the other, will be benefiting more than the other - no matter what you do! It's impossible to balance both costs and benefits, because your income and expenses are not the same going in. If you go this way you'll need to choose what is most important - splitting the expenses/income equally, or benefiting financially equally. So I say again, ultimately you have to choose based upon your individual and shared values, and also on just what sort of relationship and layers of commitment you want to have together. You could start slow with option 1, then progress to sharing more - that's what I'd recommend, because I like the idea of developing things one layer at a time rather than jumping in head-first (like I have personally done in the past, haha!). Once bitten twice shy, I might just be more risk-averse or careful than you desire to be, but that's a personal choice. I personally believe the relationship can be far more valuable than any investment, but at the same time I'll take $1 over a relationship that has turned sour any day of the week. This is why I suggest the more gradual, careful approach - to let your love bloom and grow deeper one layer at a time, without the complexities of fully shared finances or investment partnership. Relationships are hard enough, so this is why I favor trying to protect them aggressively from unnecessary complexity. Some favor the \"\"sink or swim\"\" model of seeking out trials and challenges, while I favor the \"\"relationship as tender, growing sapling\"\" model. I hope seeing these options laid out more is helpful to you, and good luck to you, your relationship, and - lastly - to your investments!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ce77cace7085d6fd06cd494c162242",
"text": "Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers. Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?). This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance. My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently. There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord. Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release.",
"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": "8226861e999d5309617e09affbc81fb2",
"text": "\"It's a little unusual, but I don't think the financial terms are completely unreasonable on their face. What you describe is similar to an interest-only loan, where you make payments that only cover the interest due each month, and the entire principal is due as a single \"\"balloon payment\"\" on a specified date (in this case, the date on which the condo is sold). Your monthly payment of $500 on a principal of $115K is equivalent to an annual interest rate of 5.22%, which at least is not completely usurious. With a traditional mortgage you might pay a rate as low as 3%, if you had sufficient income and excellent credit - but I don't know, from what you've said, whether that's the case. Did you make the current arrangement because you were unable to get a loan from a bank? The main difference here is that instead of the balloon payment being a fixed $115K, it's \"\"75% of the gross proceeds of the sale\"\". If the condo eventually sells for $155K, that would be $116,250, so that's slightly advantageous to them (assuming that \"\"gross proceeds\"\" means \"\"before deducting commissions for either the buyers' or sellers' realtors or any other costs of the sale\"\"), and thus slightly disadvantageous to you. If the condo appreciates in value, that's more of a win for them and more of a relative loss for you. But it's also possible that the value of the condo goes down, in which case this arrangement is better for you than a fixed balloon payment. So this deal does prevent you from getting a larger share of any gains in the value of the property, but it also helps insulate you from any losses. That's important to keep in mind. There's also the issue of needing their consent to sell. That's potentially problematic - usually in a joint ownership scheme, either owner has the right to demand to be bought out or to force a sale. I guess it depends on whether you think your parents would be likely to consent under reasonable circumstances, or to insist on holding the property against your best interests. It's true that you aren't building equity with this arrangement, and if you thought you were, you are mistaken or misled. But let's compare it with other options. If you would qualify for a traditional 30-year fixed mortgage at 3%, your monthly payment would be slightly lower ($484), and you would be building some equity because your payments would reduce the principal as well as paying the interest. But a 30-year loan builds equity very slowly at first - after 7 years you'd have only about $20,000 in principal paid down. If we assume that 5.2% represents the interest rate you'd otherwise pay based on your creditworthiness, then your monthly payment would be $631. So compared to that, you have an extra $130 per month that you can save or invest in whatever you want - you're not forced to invest it in your house. Note that in either case you'd still be paying the condo fees, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance yourself. So we might as well eliminate those from consideration. It might be a good idea to find out what other options you would have - perhaps try to get an interest rate quote on a traditional mortgage from a bank, based on your income and credit history. Then you can decide what to do, taking into account: your financial situation; how much of a monthly payment could you afford? your relationship with your parents; are they likely to be reasonable about renegotiating? Do they in general tend to respect your wishes? Would it harm your relationship if you tried to get out of the deal, and how important is that to you? To what extent do you actually want to pay for equity in this property? Do you really believe it's a good investment, and have evidence to support that? Your options include: Try to renegotiate the terms of the loan from your parents Try to \"\"refinance\"\" the loan, by getting a loan from a bank and paying off some agreed-upon amount of principal to your parents Try to force the sale of the condo and move to another house, financing it some other way Consult a lawyer as to whether your agreement with your parents is legally enforceable. For instance, do they have a lien on the property?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20740f5842204ad615cd3309fc8cd602",
"text": "Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent: If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people: In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b509ef7590b593609fa926e7c92f2d42",
"text": "This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness. It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
de5c2a4365e13256dcbde8517fbff0b8
|
Which Benjamin Graham book should I read first: Security Analysis or Intelligent Investor?
|
[
{
"docid": "008d38f36cb1fbdd6598ba45df4674a4",
"text": "I would recommend reading Intelligent Investor first. It was written slightly more recently (1949) than Security Analysis (1934). More important is that a recently revised edition* of Intelligent Investor was published. The preface and appendix were written by Warren Buffett. Intelligent Investor is more practical as an introduction for a novice. You may decide not to read Security Analysis at all, as it seems more like an academic text or professional's guide i.e. for accounting. Benjamin Graham's Intelligent Investor remains relevant. It is used, successfully, as a guide for value investing, despite the hysteria of market sentiment and day-to-day variations, even extreme volatility. For example, I just read a nice article about applying the value investing principles extolled in Intelligent Investor a few weeks ago. It was written in the context of current markets, which is amazing, to be so applicable, despite the passage of decades. For reference, you might want to glance at this book review (published in March 2010!) of the original 1934 edition of Security Analysis. * The URL links to a one-paragraph summary by U.S. News & World Report. It does not link to a book sales website!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "996266f97b78e4f6e3f69efe23457325",
"text": "\"I would start with The Intelligent Investor. It's more approachable than Security Analysis. I read the revised edition which includes post-chapter commentary and footnotes from Jason Zweig. I found the added perspective helpful since the original book is quite old. Warren Buffet has called Intelligent Investor \"\"the best book about investing ever written.\"\" (Source) I would suggest that endorsement ranks it before the other. :) Security Analysis is more detailed and, perhaps, oriented at a more professional audience – though individual investors would certainly benefit from reading it. Security Analysis is used as a textbook on value investing in some university-level business & finance courses. (p.s. If you haven't yet heard about William Bernstein's The Intelligent Asset Allocator, I also recommend adding it to your reading list.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66b416b5a7b2262ada678903c3bbc1af",
"text": "First The Intelligent Investor and then the 1962 edition Security Analysis - which is out of print, you can get it on Amazon.com used or ebay. Then you can read the edition backward but the 1962 edition is the best - IMHO. And don't forget The Rediscovered Benjamin Graham and Benjamin Graham on Value Investing by Jane Lowe",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae77f1bb13aa29e899d114ce16792159",
"text": "If you're looking to learn more about investing for personal use (as opposed to academic interest), I'd recommend something like The Ages of the Investor instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "875b9d99fa89cb20d2db3c95e89221f1",
"text": "\"Having thought about it, I decided to start with another book by the same author : \"\"The Interpretation of Financial Statements\"\". I do not have a sufficiently strong basis to know what either \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" or \"\"Security Analysis\"\" are even about. Yeah, I might understand things, but I wouldn't grasp the essence, as I would be too busy figuring out what I didn't understand and miss the forest for the trees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cce48ba0b70d943ddbae37ddfaaee0e",
"text": "Read the Security Analysis. I believe if you read it completely, you will have a real good chance of succeeding at making good money. If you find the book hard to read just go through it and underline under the text as you read it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0ecb2a725e650028ba832f98801a01b8",
"text": "I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a43fa9b65ec8de1dcc44ad2e934b5d6b",
"text": "I would always recommend the intelligent investor by Benjamin Graham the mentor of warren buffet once you have a basic knowledge ie what is a share bond guilt etc In terms of pure investment the UK is fairly similar the major difference is the simpler tax structure, ISA allowance and the more generous CGT regime.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99a35d8a21693b605106176989414fed",
"text": "This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today. The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "091d0a87dbb77d1969526ce177b4030a",
"text": "\"Read \"\"The intelligent Investor\"\" book before you do anything. I started when I really didn't understand anything about stocks. I bought an internet stock for $150 per share which sold at 75cents a year later. I sold it for a profit but would've been a disaster.\"",
"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": "bac26e6289d4d3b07230a31701149d43",
"text": "I think that MFin is best suited for more technical roles in banks (I assume when you say IB you mean sell/buy side M&A), HF, AM, and PM roles. I don't view PE, CF, or IB as technically challenging as most of the analysis is done on the areas outside of finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7008b550403bc155de22a04bc7a30bb3",
"text": "\"There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said \"\"Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10\"\". A few days later he comes back to me and says \"\"There are none\"\". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef08f8282500399d92fa6386732c2dcf",
"text": "as someone who made a fair attempt at understanding money subjects, I'd like some more writing from you. I took high school level Marketing; Business economics; commercial law. it took six months on top of my previous High school ( with high level maths). during those months I got medium grades, and failed in- can you believe it - marketing. I had a go at The intelligent investor. I made it to page 96. But honestly I felt like I needed a lot of background in order for me to understand it. English is my second language. Sure I can understand words like liability vs assets. but to this day i still can't remember the difference between a bull and bearish market. I know its about risk assesment on a national/ global level. So who honestly gave finance a go but got their ass kicked. What would you say? any books?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80d022fd1fffce9b8a0474924205f9a7",
"text": "\"Thanks! I came across many books on credit risk in my google searches - what I'm really looking for is which one is the \"\"industry standard\"\" reading (does that make sense?). For example, in derivatives, everybody recommends John C. Hull's Options... book. Why of all the CRM books, do you recommend those three in particular?\"",
"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": "ab5c1671ac2ffb380ff40d351a547036",
"text": "Now it's been a while since I read these, and I'm not complete sure if these are the kinds of books that you're looking for, but I found them quite good: Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives by Hull: http://amzn.com/0133456315 Investments and Portfolio Management by Bodie, Kane & Marcus: http://amzn.com/0071289143 I hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "790e196c00a5bf538829bf296cb12f57",
"text": "\"Benninga's book(s) are pretty much the best crash course to financial modelling with Excel - be aware though, he has two distinct types of book. One is more of a walk-through of financial principles in Excel('Principles of Finance with Excel, 2nd Ed.'), and the other could better be described as a 'glossary' of financial applications in Excel(the oft-recommended 'Financial Modeling') . As far as I'm aware, both contain roughly the same volume of information about the same topics (could be some minor differences, as the walk-through-style book is newer), but are taught in somewhat different ways. It might be useful to obtain a copy of one or the other from a library and see if you enjoy the style of the book before purchasing it. I was fortunate enough to have a roommate where between us, we have both, but doing this individually is a 200+ dollar endeavor, and you will only be duplicating identical information. ;) If you're interested in reading other interesting material, that may help you develop different perspectives/insight into investing, I would suggest, aside from reading the usual stuff (Intelligent Investor, Random Walk, etc), also obtaining a copy of Seth Klarman's \"\"Margin of Safety\"\". You'll have to do so in .pdf form, as the book is entirely out of print (and from what I've heard, Klarman himself bought out many retailers of all of their copies and had them destroyed), but it's an interesting read, that has a lot of modern relevance - perhaps best evidenced by the fact that it's author, president of one of the largest hedge funds in the world, no longer wants it in print.\"",
"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": "faa8b56eb94acc86948a4221b8a79aa5",
"text": "Assuming you were immersed in math with your CS degree, the book **'A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street' by Andrew Lo** is a very interesting book about the random walk hypothesis and it's application to financial markets and how efficient markets might not necessarily imply complete randomness. Lots of higher level concepts in the book but it's an interesting topic if you are trying to branch out into the quant world. The book isn't very specific towards algorithmic trading but it's good for concept and ideas. Especially for general finance, that will give you a good run down about markets and the way we tackle modern finance. **A Random Walk Down Wall Street** (which the book above is named after) by **Burton Malkiel** is also supposed to be a good read and many have suggested reading it before the one I listed above, but there really isn't a need to do so. For investing specifically, many mention **'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham** who is the role model for the infamous Warren Buffet. It's an older book and really dry and I think kind of out dated but mostly still relevant. It's more specifically about individual trading rather than markets as a whole or general markets. It sounds like you want to learn more about markets and finance rather than simply trading or buying stocks. So I'd stick to the Andrew Lo book first. --- Also, since you might not know, it would be a good idea to understand the capital asset pricing model, free cash flow models, and maybe some dividend discount models, the last of which isn't so much relevant but good foundations for your finance knowledge. They are models using various financial concepts (TVM is almost used in every case) and utilizing them in various ways to model certain concepts. You'd most likely be immersed in many of these topics by reading a math-oriented Finance book. Try to stay away from those penny stock trading books, I don't think I need to tell a math major (who is probably much smarter than I am) that you don't need to be engaging in penny stocks, but do your DD and come to a conclusion yourself if you'd like. I'm not sure what career path you're trying to go down (personal trading, quant firm analyst, regular analyst, etc etc) but it sounds like you have the credentials to be doing quant trading. --- Check out www.quantopian.com. It's a website with a python engine that has all the necessary libraries installed into the website which means you don't have to go through the trouble yourself (and yes, it is fucking trouble--you need a very outdated OS to run one of the libraries). It has a lot of resources to get into algorithmic trading and you can begin coding immediately. You'd need to learn a little bit of python to get into this but most of it will be using matplotlib, pandas, or some other library and its own personal syntax. Learning about alpha factors and the Pipeline API is also moderately difficult to get down but entirely possible within a short amount of dedicated time. Also, if you want to get into algorithmic trading, check out Sentdex on youtube. He's a python programmer who does a lot of videos on this very topic and has his own tool on quantopian called 'Sentiment Analyzer' (or something like that) which basically quantifies sentiment around any given security using web scrapers to scrape various news and media outlets. Crazy cool stuff being developed over there and if you're good, you can even be partnered with investors at quantopian and share in profits. You can also deploy your algorithms through the website onto various trading platforms such as Robinhood and another broker and run your algorithms yourself. Lots of cool stuff being developed in the finance sector right now. Modern corporate finance and investment knowledge is built on quite old theorems and insights so expect a lot of things to change in today's world. --- With a math degree, finance should be like algebra I back in the day. You just gotta get familiar with all of the different rules and ideas and concepts. There isn't that much difficult math until you begin getting into higher level finance and theory, which mostly deals with statistics anyways like covariance and regression and other statistic-related concepts. Any other math is simple arithmetic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bf32a9fd5e534e38192d3081982fe16",
"text": "\"They aren't necessarily trustworthy. Many institutions claim to have a \"\"Chinese Wall\"\" between their investment banking arms and analysis arms. In practice, these walls have sometimes turned out to be entirely imaginary. That is, analysis is published with an eye to what is good for their investment banking business. One of the most notorious cases of this was Henry Blodget, an analyst with Merrill Lynch during the dot-com bubble. Blodget became a star analyst after he correctly predicted Amazon would hit $400/share within a year. However some of his later public analysis dramatically conflicted with his private comments. Famously when he started covering GoTo.com, rating it as \"\"neutral to buy\"\", he was asked \"\"What's so interesting about Goto except banking fees????\"\" Blodget replied, \"\"nothin\"\". Eventually he was permanently banned from the securities industry.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
92deae6e188182ea2aa3bae12d25e155
|
What exactly is a wealth management platform?
|
[
{
"docid": "f2f2b0c9cd33740896b9f7479d98eaa3",
"text": "It's a tech buzzword. OK I'm being a bit glib. A Wealth Management Platform is a software system designed to help people track their investment portfolios and research new investments. Sometimes, trusts and small investment firms will use these platforms as well but they will often have more specialized separate systems for portfolio tracking and research. There is a large variety of platforms out there all trying to be the best platform for you... or someone else. Some will have websites and be open to all with money and some will be applications and only target some types of investors. Some will have robo-advising (Wealthfront), a human adviser (Merrill) or have none at all. Some will have nice graphical tools to track your portfolio or great research tools or both (I try not to recommend products on this site). Some can be designed to nudge you into their ideology (Vanguard). All, though, have a technology team behind them to make investing easier for you (or their investment advisers) or to sell you their products. You get the picture.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e54f391924671d1e00e469749b7206a",
"text": "Most businesses have some sort of software to manage their client data. Most of these various software and/or services are industry specific. Black Diamond seems to be a client management tool targeting investment advisers. From the black diamond site Reach an unparalleled level of productivity and transform your client conversations. You don't need one of these unless you're a professional investment adviser with so many clients you can't track them yourself or need more robust reporting or statement generation tools. For your purposes most regular brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, TD, etc, have more than enough tools for the retail level investor. They have news feeds, security analysis papers, historical data, stock screeners, etc. You, a regular retail investor doesn't need to buy special software, your broker will generally provide these things as part of the service.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2cef3bd918fe90b660ef7b73873a40c6",
"text": "A few months ago, I met with the founder of Wealthsimple. As someone with higher than average about both trading and investing, I asked him whether his funds would be able to add more value to my Couch Potato portfolio not in terms of returns but rather in terms of management fees. I also asked him this: if I wish to have a portfolio that has a specific % allocation towards emerging markets, would I be able to do so with Wealthsimple. The answer to both of the above questions was that I'd be better off investing by myself. I'd venture a guess and say that most people on SE Money wouldn't require a service such as Wealthsimple.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7ee3420c962c48e9922a2fe399011b",
"text": "The simple answer is: YES, the JP Morgan emerging markets equity fund is a mutual fund. A mutual fund is a pooling of money from investors to invest in stocks and bonds. Investors in mutual funds arrive there in different ways. Some get there via their company 401K, others by an IRA, still others as a taxable account. The fund can be sold by the company directly or through a broker. You can also have a fund of funds. So the investors are other funds. Some investors are only indirect investors. They are owed a pension by a past or current employer, and the pension fund has invested in a mutual fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87fd0ffbacf2f9c408959b74bf24807b",
"text": "I interned at a wealth management firm that used very active momentum trading, 99% technicals. Strictly ETFs (indexes, currencies, commodities, etc), no individual equities. They'd hold anywhere from 1-4 weeks, then dump it as soon as the chart starts turning over. As soon as I get enough capital I'm adopting their same exact strategy, it's painfully easy",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7efc2dd021ddf9a2a03b9622a11cf2a",
"text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b027f0a256497e1482eeda873c4335b",
"text": "Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate help shareholders (employees, ex-employees, etc.) in private companies get liquidity for shares they already own. ESOFund and 137 Ventures help with option financing, and provide loans (and exotic structures on loans) to cover costs of exercising options and any associated tax hit. EquityZen is a private company marketplace that led the second wave of VC-backed secondary markets starting early 2013. The mission is to help achieve liquidity for employees and other private company shareholder, but in a company-approved way. EquityZen transacts with share transfers and also a proprietary derivative structure which transfers economics of a company's shares without changing voting and information rights. This structure typically makes the transfer process cheaper and faster as less paperwork is involved. Accredited investors find the process appealing because they get access to companies they usually cannot with small check sizes. To address the questions in Dzt's post: 1). EquityZen doesn't take a 'loan shark' approach meaning they don't front shareholders money so that they can purchase their stock. With EquityZen, you’re either selling your shares or selling all the economic risk—upside and downside—in exchange for today’s value. 2). EquityZen only allows company approved deals on the platform. As a result, companies are more friendly towards the process and they tend to allow these deals to take place. Non-company approved deals pose risks for buyers and sellers and are ultimately unsustainable. As a buyer, without company blessing, you’re taking on significant counterparty risk from the seller (will they make good on their promise to deliver shares in the future?) or the risk that the transfer is impermissible under relevant restrictions and your purchase is invalid. As a seller, you’re running the risk of violating your equity agreements, which can have severe penalties, like forfeiture of your stock. Your shares are also much less marketable when you’re looking to transact without the company’s knowledge or approval. 3). Terms don't change depending an a shareholder's situation. EquityZen is a professional company and values all of the shareholders that use the platform. It’s a marketplace so the market sets the price. In other situations, you may be at the mercy of just one large buyer. This can happen when you’re facing a big tax bill on exercise but don’t have the cash (because you have the stock). 4). EquityZen doesn't offer loans so this is a non issue. 5). Not EquityZen! EquityZen creates a clean break from the economics. It’s not uncommon for the loan structures to use an interest component as well as some other complications, like upside participation and and also a liquidation preference. EquityZen strives for a simple structure where you’re not on the hook for the downside and you’ve transferred all the upside as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b225057ac5a2daf8508875ece3977755",
"text": "\"For a job doing that kind of stuff, what is PREFERRED is 4 year undergrad at ivy league school + 2 year MBA at ivy league school, and then several more years of experience, which you can sort of get by interning while in school this will of course saddle you with debt, which is counterintuitive to your plans basically, the easy way up is percentage based compensation. without knowing the right people, you will get a piss poor salary regardless of what you do, in the beginning. so portfolio managers earn money by percentage based fees, and can manage millions and billions. real estate agents can earn money by percentage based commissions if they close a property and other business venture/owners can do the same thing. the problem with \"\"how to trade\"\" books is that they are outdated by the time they are published. so you should just stick with literature that teaches a fundamental knowledge of the products you want to trade/make money from. ultimately regardless of how you get/earn your initial capital, you will still need to be an individual investor to grow your own capital. this has nothing to do with being a portfolio manager, even highly paid individuals on wall street are in debt to lavish expenditures and have zero capital for their own investments. hope this helps, you really need to be thinking in a certain way to just quickly deduce good ideas from bad ideas\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b163e05a8bc82fc2d2c28d0c5c8e1f6",
"text": "\"You need to hope that a fund exists targeting the particular market segment you are interested in. For example, searching for \"\"cloud computing ETF\"\" throws up one result. You'd then need to read all the details of how it invests to figure out if that really matches up with what you want - there'll always be various trade-offs the fund manager has to make. For example, with this fund, one warning is that this ETF makes allocations to larger firms that are involved in the cloud computing space but derive the majority of their revenues from other operations Bear in mind that today's stock prices might have already priced in a lot of future growth in the sector. So you might only make money if the sector exceeds that predicted growth level (and vice versa, if it grows, but not that fast, you could lose money). If the sector grows exactly as predicted, stock prices might stay flat, though you'd still make a bit of money if they pay dividends. Also, note that the expense ratios for specialist funds like this are often quite a bit higher than for \"\"general market\"\" funds. They are also likely to be traded less frequently, which will increase the \"\"bid-ask\"\" spread - i.e. the cost of buying into and getting out of these funds will be higher.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ac2bcd3dbc3e67598efa988acae9373",
"text": "Why would you bet it’s Sun Capital Partners? OP said it’s a firm that specializes in buying software companies. Sun is a generalist investor. Tech-specific funds include, but are not limited to: Vista, Thoma Bravo, Insight Venture Partners, JMI Equity, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "796b43b97f737d12f389d6b75da86f48",
"text": "\"According to what little information is available currently, this fund is most akin to an actively managed exchange traded fund rather than an investment trust. An investment trust is an actively managed, closed-end fund that is tradeable on the stock market. \"\"Closed-end\"\" means that there are a fixed number of shares available for trading, so if you wish to buy or sell shares in a closed-end fund you need to find someone willing to sell or buy shares. \"\"Actively managed\"\" means that the assets are selected by the fund managers in the belief that they will perform well. This is in contrast to a \"\"passively managed\"\" fund which simply tracks an underlying index. The closed-end nature of investment trusts means that the share price is not well correlated to the value of the underlying assets. Indeed, almost all UK investment trusts trade at a significant discount to their net asset value. This reflects their historic poor performance and relatively weak liquidity. Of course there are some exceptions to this. Examples of open-end funds are unit trust (US = mutual funds) and ETFs (exchange traded funds). They are \"\"open-end\"\" funds in the sense that the number of shares/units available will change according to demand. Most importantly, the price of a share/unit will be strongly correlated to the net asset value of the underlying portfolio. In general, for an open-end fund, if the net asset value of the fund is X and there are Y shares/units outstanding, then the price of a share/unit will be X/Y. Historic data shows that passively managed funds (index trackers) \"\"always\"\" outperform actively managed funds in the long term. One of the big issues with actively managed funds is they have relatively high management fees. The Peoples Trust will be charging about 1% with a promise that this should come down over time. Compare this to a fee of 0.05% on a large, major market index tracking ETF. Further, the 1% headline fee being touted by Peoples Trust is a somewhat misleading, since they are paying their employees bonuses with shares in the fund. This will cause dilution of the net asset value per share and can be read as addition management fees by proxy. Since competent fund managers will demand high incomes, bonus shares could easily double the management fees, depending on the size of the fund. In summary, history has shown that the promises of active fund managers rarely (if ever) come to fruition. Personally, I would not consider this to be an attractive investment and would look more towards a passively managed major market index ETF with low management fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eec00fac4023bd89d4a52ab034993c41",
"text": "If you want to go far upstream, you can get mutual fund NAV and dividend data from the Nasdaq Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). This isn't for end-users but rather is offered as a part of the regulatory framework. Not surprisingly, there is a fee for data access. From Nasdaq's MFQS specifications page: To promote market transparency, Nasdaq operates the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). MFQS is designed to facilitate the collection and dissemination of daily price, dividends and capital distributions data for mutual funds, money market funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), annuities and structured products.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7accc45fe4cc1332be12c3be038ef716",
"text": "\"I assume it's some kind of service that will help me make more money somehow No, wealth management is helping you keep the wealth you have, not to become more wealthy. Insurance sales, portfolio management, estate planning, and trust formation (to avoid estate taxes) are common services associated with \"\"wealth management\"\". Wikipedia already has a pretty good definition.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2751206de3d1f06240c973f6fadffc14",
"text": "My go-to response whenever anyone asks me this is the Monevator table of platform fees. It looks a little complicated at first, but scroll past the table for a couple of paragraphs of useful info to help narrow down your search. The general tone of the page is geared more towards investors in index funds, but the fees on share-dealing are right there in the table too. There are also special notes if there are discounts for frequent traders and that sort of thing, so not too much passive-investor elitism on show!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b611488d1d23e35fd8b1e3ed248e14f",
"text": "\"Asset management typically refers to the \"\"product\"\" group e.g. Mutual fund, etf, etc., like invesco offering qqq or some emerging market mutual fund. Capital management is more vague and can refer to a wide range of financial products and services including asset management and stuff like ptfl planning, wealth advisory etc. That said they are both used interchangeably and not like anyone would correct you if you used one vs the other...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b69da8ccb25538fbfd19ff9b2a4dfad9",
"text": "\"I just found out my financial advisors are not fiduciaries. they manage a very large fund and have a board of trustees. they have a 30-year track record of great results. I asked why would the wealth managers not be fiduciaries if they will only ever act in the best interest of the clients and was told \"\"I would assume because they don't have to be, the assets aren't theirs, they belong to the fund\"\" Should I run?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8",
"text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f088c18e9c5cea697ab42427b009d625
|
Shifting income to 401k
|
[
{
"docid": "1ac3e3ee4e04c1252026071879b257dc",
"text": "This will be difficult to achieve. It can be done, but it's very rare to have an agreement where your employer is willing to max out your contribution limit unless you are a partner in the business or a family relation. In this situation the extra employer money would probably come from a profit sharing contribution. If your employer increases your match, others are correct that your employer would have to increase the match for everyone. Not so with a profit sharing contribution. This is assuming 2 things though: Both of those are BIG if's, and I'd say 99% of the time it's not gonna happen for either of those two reasons. Your chances are better if you don't own >5% of the company, don't make over $120,000/year, and are related to you employer. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e846532be43422142d1755b58895a87",
"text": "Assumptions made for this answer, they may not be true for anybody: For the numbers part we will assume you are single and make 96,000 per year. Unknowns: how long you have to wait post accumulation to convince the bank you really do make $96,000 per year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2b73da30654362e0cc93d27591559691",
"text": "Post-86 After tax contributions to a 401k are after tax. The earnings on that money is taxable, but not the contributions. This means: You'll have $15,000 in the 401k and $10,000 is considered after-tax and $5,000 is considered pre-tax. The after-tax portion can be converted to a Roth IRA without paying taxes or penalties. New in September 2014 The IRS has made substantial changes that now enable this to happen. You can request a distribution from your 401k provider where they divide the money into pre-tax and after-tax funds. In my example, you'd get a check for $10,000 that you could send to a Roth IRA and a check for $5,000 you could add to a traditional Roll-over IRA. Neither of those would be taxable events and you'd end with a Roth IRA with $10K and a Traditional, Rollover IRA with $5K in it. Notes:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7ba2b2bd126f15e6716b0aae7922024",
"text": "Too long for a comment - It's great that you are saving to the match on the 401(k). Does your company offer a Roth 401(k)? If so, you might consider that, instead. From the numbers you offered, you are likely in the 15% bracket now, but will find you move to 25% in years to come. The 2014 tax rates are out and how the 15% bracket ending at $36,900. (Over $47,000 gross income). I'd rather see you pay tax at 15% now, and use pre-tax accounts as your income rises. If the Roth is available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52ac5428aefb5e55a7576108668702e0",
"text": "Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86e0bb3dc4107664219376ebcca5c4d4",
"text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d2d3a8f04171516b995c741a5a620af",
"text": "Assuming your only income is withdrawals from the 401k, the thing that determines the tax rate on your 401k withdrawals is how much money you draw out of the 401k in a single tax year. The money counts as income when you take it out. If you withdraw $100,000 from the 401k in a single year, you'll be in a higher tax bracket than if you withdraw only $30,000 in that year, but your earnings in previous years are irrelevant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dddeefab58515aa461298ae819ed1ce",
"text": "401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7ca42754f8dbcf566f746c495e6325d",
"text": "Take The 20k and transfer it to the new employer 401k. You then can take a loan and accomplish the same thing. By the time you pay the tax and 10% penalty, that withdrawal will be worth just over half. The same half you can borrow out, pay yourself the interest and not lose out on 50 years of growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e32eb3044899febf97d41eb6b0bd7dd",
"text": "The 60 day pay back rule of a distribution your are referring to is a reportable IRS rule so you won't be able to circumvent that by opening your own company with its own 401K and borrowing the funds from there. Failure to accurately report to the IRS leads to fines and possible jail time. It's not advisable to withdraw from a retirement account but if you really need the money then you can move the funds to a Rollover IRA at the new broker/dealer, or custodian etc. Once you withdraw funds, the plan sponsor has to abide by a mandatory 20% tax withholding on the distribution, you'll be hit with a 10% tax penalty for early withdraw and you'll have to report the distribution as income when you file your personal income taxes. The move from a 401K to a Rollover however is legal and has no tax implications or penalties (besides possible closing fees at the old account) - that is until you decide to withdraw from it assuming you are under age 59 1/2. Regarding your last point, 401Ks are administered by 3rd parties. You wouldn't be opening up any accounts directly with them necessarily. Best advice? Get a Financial Advisor in your area. I recommend going with an advisor who is backed by independent broker-dealer. Independent broker dealers don't offer their own investment products therefore don't push their advisors to sell you their 'in-house' products like big banks. Here's a good article on using Rollover funds to start a venture: http://www.ehow.com/how_6789743_rollover-directed-ira-start-business.html Here is a resource guide direct from the IRS (you can CTRL+F for any specific topics) http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/401%28k%29-Resource-Guide---Plan-Participants---General-Distribution-Rules",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b801131a9448b8cb4962570767f6207f",
"text": "Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7246080679e57da969988ad366823779",
"text": "(Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17d8e4f29e00cd50db0ad51da51ed795",
"text": "\"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6bc92aee3c062df68dba5a5407131de",
"text": "My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000. There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation. The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d9bfd7e1cf7f1a4b622862b0770d9e1",
"text": "Don't steal from the 401k. If you take the money out, you'll pay 28% in taxes and 10% in penalties -- only getting $12,960 out. Before you do anything, consult an online refi calculator to make sure you'll be in the house beyond the break-even point. With the numbers you've given and some reasonable guesses I made, it looks like you'll break even within a year. If your new employer's plan allows for loans, roll it into the new plan. Based on what you say you're putting in, you should be able to take a loan out of about $15-20k, which would get you to your LTV goal. Before you do this, calculate: and make sure you will comfortably be able to handle all of the payments. Make sure you're aware of the loan terms on your 401k loan. Understand the penalties associated with failing to make timely payments. Finally, beware of sinking all of your liquid cash into this -- how will you handle an emergency that comes up soon after closing on the new loan before you have a chance to rebuild your emergency fund?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5aa979140c977b298717a423bd1af39",
"text": "\"I don't think there's a rule -- (I can't comment) but Brick cited IRS rules...but IMO Brick missed one thing -- @ashur668 is not looking for a distribution, but is looking for a rollover. My best guess: that this part of the ruleset is not well defined, and your (and my) employer have chosen to interpret any withdrawl as a \"\"distribution\"\", even if better characterized a rollover. A few months ago, I went so far as to explore if I could use a loophole -- my company had just gone through a merger; I was hoping I could rollover some or maybe all of my 401k to my IRA (I remember now, it would have been everything before starting roth 401k contributions). My company asserted this was not permitted, and further asserted that the rumors I had heard were mistaken that when we went through a company spin-off a few years before, that nobody under 59 1/2 was permitted to roll over. I did a quick search and found IRS topic 413 As far as I can tell, this topic is silent on the matter at hand. Topic 413 referred me to IRS Publication 575, where I started looking at the section on rollovers. I read some of it then got bored. Note that we're one step removed -- we are reading IRS publications and interpretations of IRS rules. I don't know that anybody here has read the actual tax law. There may be something in there that prevents companies from rolling over before 59 1/2 that is not well codified in IRS publications.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8fded8029447d6371ae0dc5bccd7432",
"text": "Withdrawals from a traditional 401(k) plan are always treated as cash income and the taxable portion is taxed at ordinary income tax rates, even if the money was held in stocks within the 401(k) plan and the amount withdrawn is equal to whatever capital gains you made by selling the stock within the 401(k) plan. If your plan permits you to take the distribution as stock shares (transferred to your taxable brokerage account), then, for tax purposes, it is treated as if you took a distribution of cash equal to the market price of the shares as of the day of the distribution and promptly bought the same number of shares in your brokerage account. And yes, if the 401(k) plan assets in your ex-employer's plan consists solely of pretax contributions and the earnings thereon, then the entire distribution is ordinary taxable income regardless of whether you sold the stock within the 401(k) plan or took a distribution of stock from the plan and promptly (or after a few days) sold it. The capital gains or losses (if any) from such a sale are, of course, outside the 401(k) plan and taxable accordingly. Finally, the 10% penalty for premature withdrawal from a traditional 401(k) will also apply if you are not 59.5 years of age or older (or maybe 55 since you are separated from service), and it will be computed on the entire distribution.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8b1dec7b8a4b48791fb21e7bbcbcd834
|
Checks not cashed
|
[
{
"docid": "987eae0d63dd48045d0cd55b10e90597",
"text": "You're certainly still responsible to pay what you owe the company given that: 1. for whatever reason, the recipient never received the checks. and 2. the money was credited back to you, albeit in a less than timely manner. However, if you take the time to explain the situation to the business, and show them proof that you sent the payments I would guess they would probably be willing to work with you on removing any late fees you have been assessed or possibly setting up a payment plan. Also, if you have been charged any overdraft or minimum balance fees by your bank while they held your money for the payments that was eventually credited back to your account, you might be able to get them to refund those if you explain what has happened. This is really a perfect example though of why balancing your checking account is as important today as it ever was.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7d886d70fde7e58daf8a86ac00e1884c",
"text": "Nowadays, all checks you write will not be send to your bank anymore, but instead the bank where they get deposited does an ACH from your bank. That implies that not allowing this to happen, your bank would not be able to honor any checks you wrote (without enforcing paper check delivery in the mail, but the Check21 bill does not allow such enforcing anymore). Basically, your bank would not be able to do business with anyone. The obvious conclusion is that no such bank exists.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73f5e6a099898a75ebca0e1e112713da",
"text": "The legal department at the Bank left me a message telling me that the bank check was paid & the recipient got the funds. Call up the bank and find out who the recipient was. Generally it can only be cashed by the person whose name is on it - the original business partner to whom it was intended. It is unlikely to be cashed by the attorney, unless he misrepresented the facts to the bank and got the funds. My question is how could he have cashed it without the original bank check? The other possibility is your mom lost this check, went to the bank and requested them to cancel this and reissue a fresh banker's check and give it to the business partner - in which case the check you had was worthless. You would need to work with the bank and ask them for details. However without the details of the original bank check that you found, it would be difficult for the bank to help you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4be9577a4007b8e6fa6001cd6834502",
"text": "This question was asked three years ago, but now that it's 2017 there is actually a relatively easy, cheap and fast solution to at least the first half of your question. To cash the check: I've done this a half dozen times while abroad (from the US) without any problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67a6bbba7f13b2a6635133848ebf9e54",
"text": "I receive checks from my tenant. Also, from our medical reimbursement account. I'm sure there's an option somewhere to get that direct deposited, just haven't yet. My wife will write checks for school functions. Funny, they haven't cashed one since february, and this is the one item to look for every time I reconcile her account. A few select others don't take credit or debit cards. Our tailor (losing weight, needed pants pulled in), among others. The number of checks is surely down an order of magnitude over the years, but still not zero.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8b9bfb84f528142ec6933b5923e29e1",
"text": "\"Its a classic sign of fraud. The fraud is on you. You cashed the check not given to you, and not endorsed by the person its given to, so even if the check is legit you're still in trouble. There are many variations of this scheme, but the common thing is that the \"\"innocent\"\" third party is given a check to cash, and gives its own check or cash in return. The check ends up being forged, stolen, or otherwise invalid, but the cash/check the third party gave is long gone. Usually its cash, because its untraceable. You should wait at least a couple of weeks to make sure the check doesn't bounce. You might want to contact the check owner to verify its legit, and suggest to return the money, if it is not. You might also want to consult with an attorney. Bear in mind, that it might be reported to the authorities as a money laundering scheme (which it very well might be), and you'll have some explaining to do in this case, even if the check is legit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55fa76b19c951b25835e30a46c84191b",
"text": "\"Although banks do not have to honor checks that are more than six months old, they often do. Limit Noted on Check. Many large corporations put the length of time that a check is valid on the face of their checks. For example, a check may state, Valid for 90 days from this date\"\" or \"\"Not valid after 180 days.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bb6d5c5b9d7ef1d33fcf8f7c07e2e5a",
"text": "For the first case to occur, you need to have an agreement in place with the bank, this is called overdraft protection. It's done at a cost, but cheaper than the potential series of bounce fees. I've never heard of the second choice, partial payment. That's not to say that it's not possible. The payment not made is called a bounced check, you and the recipient will be harmed a fee. I believe it's a felony to write bad checks. Good to not write a check unless there's a positive balance taking that check into account. As Dilip suggests, ask your bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06d8ab67711673601cf3eaaf45b9519a",
"text": "\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \"\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\"\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a161cd359abe82b21405c3261005f3c4",
"text": "\"This may vary some by the state, but the general facts are consistent broadly. The elements of check fraud typically are: This means that not only do you have to have presented a check that is returned for insufficient funds, but you must have known at the time that it wouldn't be honored. It must typically also be given for present consideration, which is why the comments to the other answer correctly note that the post-dated check \"\"scam\"\" cooked up by the payday loan folks shouldn't generally be relevant under these laws; on the same site, they note the cases that are clearly not present consideration: So if I give you a check for $50 and it's returned for NSF because I screwed up my bank accounts and had all my money in savings, that's probably not fraud. But if I decide I really want a Tesla X and give Tesla Motors a check for $95,000, knowing I don't have $95,000, that's fraud. How the prosecutor proves knowledge is probably beyond the scope of Personal Finance and Money Stack Exchange, though I imagine it tends to commonly be done so by showing the person doesn't normally have that much money in their account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b7094cbe852a7f8c2f98dfcf51e0655",
"text": "\"When I receive a check from a customer whom I previously sent an invoice, I go to the customer report for that customer, click on the link \"\"Invoice\"\" for that invoice, then click on the Pay Invoice button (very far right side). I then do a customer report and see that there is no balance (meaning all the invoices have been paid). I don't process invoices using the same method you do. Instead I go to Business -> Customer -> Process Payment. From there I can select the applicable customer, and a list of unpaid invoices will come up. I've never experienced the issue you've described. On a related topic: are you posting your invoices? From experience that has caused issues for me; when you post the invoice it should show up in your Accounts Receivable (or whichever account you've designated), and after you process the payment the A/R should go down accordingly. When posting your invoice, you specify which account it gets posted to: So that account should show a balance once you have posted it: Then, when a client pays you, your cash will go up, and A/R will go down.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2b8102999ce0df2fd34e8a6903b8900",
"text": "The store wants their money back. It's understandable that they are hesitant to accept another check from you. So if you don't have the cash to pay them back, take your good check somewhere else to cash it, and use that money to pay back the store that you gave the bad check to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2acf99226ed0dfb29bdfd1c8bfa6d16",
"text": "\"In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved. The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional \"\"and...\"\" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c970e9e4752025f14c6a88559265046",
"text": "\"The store owners don't know what your intentions are. All they know is they gave you good cash for a bad check. Part of this is that you're paying for the bad acts of others in the past, and these people aren't in the business of trying to understand your intentions. If you show good faith by going in and paying whatever you can, it will go a long way toward getting them to work with you on the balance. I don't know if they'd have much of a criminal case if the check you gave them was clearly marked as \"\"void\"\" and you've shown a willingness to resolve the situation. Of course you can't blame them for not wanting to accept another check from you. Good old hard cash, even if it isn't the full amount, will be a better sign of your intent to repay the debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1106a29d58d5538e4e2baea1dc30ea",
"text": "The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c98556545e99fddd04d0a07dcf079005",
"text": "Not illegal. With respect to littleadv response, the printing of a check isn't illegal. I can order checks from cheap check printers, and they have no relationship to any bank, so long as they have my routing number and checking account number, they print. Years ago (25+) I wrote my account details on a shirt in protest to owing the IRS money, and my bank cashed it. They charged a penalty of some nominal amount, $20 or so for 'non-standard check format' or something like that. But, in fact, stupid young person rants aside, you may write a check out by hand on a piece of paper and it should clear. The missing factor is the magnetic ink. But, I often see a regular check with a strip taped to the bottom when the mag strip fails, proving that bad ink will not prevent a check from clearing. So long as the person trying to send you the funds isn't going to dispute the transaction (and the check is made out to you, so I suppose they couldn't even do that) this process should be simple. I see little to no risk so long as the image isn't intercepted along the way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8bc61228df7aea5ffdebd16b261beb06
|
Changing Bank Account Number regularly to reduce fraud
|
[
{
"docid": "4a43b5590ae06162d3a7946e1e638d36",
"text": "Couple of my friends went through a fraud agent who ran off with their money and the landlords were none the wiser. So it always pays to be a bit diligent. Are they a well known letting agents nationally ? Many agents do have different accounts to manage their properties. Yours seems a case as such probably i.e. they manage the property on behalf of the landlord so keeping their monies differentiated. Did you sign an agreement ? If yes go through what is written in the agreement, most of it is same in all agreements but have a look anyway. Check if there is mention of deposit protection scheme. One thing you could do is go to a bank to do the transfer, the same bank where the letting agent holds their account and confirm from them if it is really a personal account or a business account. I am not sure how possible it is, but doesn't hurt to ask. If it is a personal account, then fraud is the most possible cause. The sort code should tell you which branch and which bank. Or the best option is to ask the estate agents to show a recent statement of the bank account, where the money is to be deposited into. Some tips",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2a221dfeaebe9b45988e90b16481a57",
"text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. This is idiocy. They receive regular payments. They are asking the people who pay them to regularly change where their money is being sent. This increases their exposure to fraud dramatically as each time the account is changed, there is a risk it will be changed to an account they do not control. This is a huge red flag. Confirm that this is authentic and, if so, insist that they sign an agreement accepting all liability for the risks this crazy policy causes, otherwise, you should refuse to go through the effort of confirming new accounts and risking typing or communication errors on a regular basis. This is definitely a \"\"what were they thinking?!\"\" kind of thing. If it's not fake entirely. (This answer assumes that you were given a correct explanation, that they change it regularly believing that will reduce fraud.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b79473bb909aae086d116bb059928e44",
"text": "To be absolutely sure you should call the agent and check That said I have been renting accommodation through both agencies and directly through landlords for seven years (I live in London) and this is quite a common situation. It normally means that the deposit is being securely held by a third party so that it cannot be taken or depleted without the agreement of both parties. The deposit protection scheme ( https://www.depositprotection.com/ ) is one way that deposits are securely held in this manner. As a third party they will have different account details. It may be the case that the agency is protecting the deposit and you are paying rent to the landlord directly. This means that your deposit goes to the agency's account and the rent goes to the landlord's account. Obviously your landlord and agency have different accounts. A little colour to brighten your day: I am currently paying my rent to the agency who also took the deposit but, because of the way they handle deposits versus rent, the deposit was sent to a different account held by the same agent. In my previous flat I paid the deposit to an agency and the rent directly to the landlord. This resulted in an issue one time where I got the two accounts confused and paid rent to the agency who, after giving me a small slap on the wrist, transferred it to my landlord. In the flat before that I paid rent and the deposit to my landlords' holding company. That is one of the few times that I paid rent and the deposit into the same account. Again check with the agent that one of these situations is the case but this is absolutely normal when renting through an agency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5462c5440487993203311af78d85f3d5",
"text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. If you're absolutely sure you didn't just send money to a scammer impersonating a landlord, this has nothing to do with fraud-- they're playing a game with you. By changing the account number frequently, it makes it more likely you make a mistake in entering the payment account. When they come back to you a few days past due saying \"\"we never received your rent,\"\" you'll eventually realize it got sent to the wrong account. Now you owe them late fees, and there's really nothing you can do about it-- you did not in fact pay them on time; you sent it to the wrong account! It's an easy way for them to collect an additional few thousand dollars a year. Anytime a small business or landlord says they have to do something \"\"weird\"\" to reduce fraud, chances are it's a pretense to you getting hosed in some way.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "67c16553eb107f3a09a363b409f3429c",
"text": "Although I do not know about US Institutions; In India Banks have adopted a mix of features that mitigate the risk. Some ways that are used are;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac821b70be2c004e997630792a7b8877",
"text": "There are two unique identifiers for a bank account: SWIFT code + bank internal identifier, or IBAN code. IBAN is mostly used within European banking system, and the whole code provides a direct and unique identification of the account. SWIFT is an international network where each bank/bank branch has its own address, and account number is a metadata added to the message for the receiving bank to handle. Usually the name of the recipient and additional information are required when wiring money through the SWIFT network, to match the records and make sure there's no mistake. Account numbers don't have to be unique, not even within the same bank. There's always something else in addition to uniquely identify them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dcfca74c7468d514f1fcd2ea1efdb83",
"text": "I believe it is so. It doesn't sound like they did anything outright illegal, just a pushy upsell. You can complain to the bank manager. If you want you can mention the employee by name (if you know who they are). Ultimately, you can change banks. From what you say it sounds like you are dissatisfied with this bank, so I think you should at least begin evaluating other banks and consider switching. You can also let your current bank know you are planning to take all your money away from them specifically because of their poor customer service. You could consider filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alleging that the bank engaged in some kind of deceptive marketing of their financial products. Of course you can also file a complaint with something like the Better Business Bureau, or even just write a negative Yelp review. But these actions won't really result in any penalty for the bank as a result of what they did in your specific case; they just express your dissatisfaction in a way that will be recorded and possibly made public (e.g., in a list of complaints) to protect future consumers. If you're really gung-ho and have time and money to burn, you could hire a lawyer and get legal advice about whether it is possible to sue the bank for fraud or misuse of your personal information. Needless to say, I think this would be overkill for this situation. I would just cancel the credit card, tell the bank you're dissatisfied, switch banks, and move on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d16ce2d564ec8d4ba4693beacc3f424",
"text": "If the checking account is in a FDIC insured bank or a NCUA insured Credit Union then you don't have to worry about what happens if the bank goes out of business. In the past the government has made sure that any disruption was minimal. The fraud issue can cause a bigger problem. If they get a hold of your debit card, they can drain your account. Yes the bank gives you fraud protection so that the most you can lose is $50 or $500; many even make your liability $0 if you report it in a timely manor. But there generally is a delay in getting the money put back in your account. One way to minimize the problem is to open a savings account,it also has the FDIC and NCUA coverage . The account may even earn a little interest. If you don't allow the bank to automatically provide an overdraft transfer from savings to checking account, then the most they can temporarily steal is your checking account balance. Getting a credit card can provide additional protection. It also limits your total losses if there is fraud. The bill is only paid once a month so if they steal the card or the number, they won't be able to drain the money in the bank account. The credit card, if used wisely can also start to build a positive credit file so that in a few years you can get a loan for a car or a place to live. Of course if they steal your entire wallet with both the credit and the debit card...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bbcc5182b857524b23283bcdab578ac",
"text": "If you're worried about the account number just take a statement and black out the account number with a Sharpie or the like. That is if the account number even appears on it, these days it often doesn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd91ac9a13ba443f8dd0b2a5af1598d9",
"text": "You will probably not be able to figure out the bank from the account number. You can check for your name on registries of abandoned bank accounts or unclaimed money, but without more information, you don't have a lot of options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9a8b8c4c7721475273f9e7d3459add0",
"text": "Every bank has uses their own number ranges and assigns account numbers as they like. That means that the same account number could be in use by basically every bank simultaneously - which makes it impossible to find out the bank from the account number. A similar situation would be to find a street name from the house number - obviously, there are many streets that have a given number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85c8b5fc25546611c4d7aa05d80c5060",
"text": "\"It's pretty easy for foreign scammers to get a US phone number or email. A domestic bank account is a little harder. Very likely the direct contact is a US citizen or a legal immigrant. The Nigerian may be completely made-up to throw you off the scent. And that person can be found, dunned, or deported, and there's even a small chance of reversing the bank transfers. It's also hard for foreign scammers to sound American on the phone, again suggesting a domestic scam or one with domestic agents. If you or your son is willing to do a serious amount of skill-building and legwork, you can uncover evidence by filing a lawsuit. Once you have done so, you can use the legal processes of discovery to force banks etc. to give you information they would never give willingly. There are countless details. Lawyers get paid to get the details right. Suing actual people can backfire, they can countersue. But since you do not know their real name, you would probably be filing a \"\"John Doe\"\" lawsuit. \"\"John Doe\"\" is a placeholder: the idea being that you will later, through discovery, uncover the defendants' real names. For a novice exploring the legal system for the first time, there's a big advantage - John Doe never countersues or quashes, he never gets in your way or wastes your time... heck, he never even shows up in court! And when you collect evidence via discovery, you can take that to law enforcement or immigration. It goes without sayi-- well, there's no need to go into that. Just realize you did goof, and make sure you learn the lessons.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63bcbc146bddda345cf91dbc20cc10e5",
"text": "In many countries it is a legal requirement or in some other way mandatory for the banks to ban the owner(s) of an account to allow a third party to use the account. In some countries if you willing give someone access in this way you get no compensation what so ever and you'll be lucky if they catch the crooks and even luckier if you get any of your money back. Don't forget the possibility of jail time due to the criminal activities going on under your name.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf9c27dcd6ececc521e3e36e3051ec44",
"text": "SpecKK's answer is excellent, I've only got two things to add: When your creditors change your account number, make sure to update your online information. You're not sending back a coupon, so it's up to you to make sure it has the new number and gets posted to the correct account. If your bank supports it, give the creditors good labels/nicknames. If you have names that are similar, it's easy to send a payment to the wrong place -- this may not be easy to detect and is a hassle to straighten out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9825f66ddff2952845d37a42b68709f",
"text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dba2b8b6ff34a67ab2d2fc51c37304d6",
"text": "You should talk to your bank and explain what happened. Your bank may contact vendor bank to discuss the account, but really that is up to them. Then you should contact your police department and report the fraud. Realistically, your chances of recovering any money is negligible. I think your best chance is convincing your bank to work with vendor bank on a reversal(if it was a domestic transfer), although it is more likely that the vendor bank account is already empty and closed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6ee0268f820bc54c4686272f14fe567",
"text": "Generally just giving a Bank Account Number does not cause damage. It depends on what other information the user has and the country you are in. Generally Bank take telephone instruction for certain [non-transactional] activities , and they would authenticate you by asking account number, address, date of birth and some additional info. In today's world this info can be pretty easily accessible, for example facebook or a details posted on Jobsites etc. It is best avoided to give the bank account details, unless you are sure of the person. Typical other misuse is using your bank account to Launder black money. The typical modus is transfer funds to you and then ask you to transfer it elsewhere. At times its also a scam and you loose money as they trick you in sending money before you receive it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a688faf4d3c64d1c61c6ff3d1e8d183",
"text": "ATMs have had repeated attack vectors over the years they have proved to be quite vulnerable over and over. Worse than that many of the attacks haven't been fixed either, its only secrecy of the attack vectors that save them. But that isn't an us issue, its an issue for the bank and if they loose money due to hacks then that happens and it impacts on their profits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e28a61090dd27438f9dca6c582fb29c",
"text": "Your plan isn't bad, but it probably isn't worth the cost for the small amount of credit building it will achieve. If you do decide to continue with it though, you'll save in interest if you make the big payment now rather than in 6 months. In other words, you can take the minimum payment, multiply it by 5, subtract that amount from the total you owe and pay the difference immediately. This way you'll still get the 6 months of reporting to the credit bureaus, but you'll pay less interest since you'll have less principle each month. I would recommend applying for the credit card right now. I believe you'll probably get approved now. If you do, then pay off the car loan without thinking about it. (If you don't get approved, think about it, then probably still pay it off.) Regarding the full coverage insurance, even after the loan is paid off and you aren't required to have it, you may still want to keep it. Even if you're the best driver on earth, if someone hits you and doesn't have insurance, or they have insurance and drive off, or a deer runs in front of you, etc, you'll lose your car and won't be reimbursed. Also, as Russell pointed out in the comments below, without collision coverage your insurance company has no incentive to work on your behalf when someone else hits you, so even if it's not your fault you may still not get reimbursed. So, I wouldn't pass on the full coverage unless your car isn't worth very much or you can stomach losing it if something happens. Good luck, and congrats on being able to pay for a car in full at 19 years old.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
373826658df3a8199233d9549c154a61
|
Is it wise to invest small amounts of money short-term?
|
[
{
"docid": "86a0aae8eac884e09f5e660cbe3e77f8",
"text": "You can expect about a 7% return when investing in the general market if your horizon is ten years or more. The market fluctuates, which means that you should be absolutely fine with losing 10% or more of your invested money during this period. You say yourself that: I have been setting aside money (...) into a savings account earmarked for that purpose (repairs/maintenance) so that I don't have to take out loans. It's obvious from your question that the purpose of this money is not savings, this is money that you are already investing, not in stocks or bonds but in your house. While this money sits around, of course you could put it into the market and hope that it grows. It all depends on your horizon, which in your case sounds like about 1 year. Is that long enough to be fairly sure you will make a profit? From what I've written so far, hopefully you can gather that the answer is no. If you choose to invest $6,000 but you need that money back in one year, you need to be aware of the risk that you'll instead end up with $5,400 or even less. Your options are then to: If you're asking for personal advice, my opinion would be this: you're already investing in your house. The housing market, like most markets, fluctuate. Whether you like it or not, you're already a victim (or benefactor) of this value fluctuation. The difference is that a house is something you'll live in for a long time (probably), that will give you daily joy in a way stocks and bonds won't. Of course, saving up money and investing them is always a good idea anyway. You should still save a small amount every month and put it into low/medium risk bonds, in my opinion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03a1aae9b4a1b33a37b3db492d41c044",
"text": "This is slightly opinion based. Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? At your age and the time period, I would say NO. This is because although the index fund do return 6-7% on average, there are several times it blips and goes negative as well. Stock Markets in short periods like 6 months can be unpredictable. At times a downturn will remain stagnant for periods of 2-3 years before suddenly zoom ahead. If you are not to particular about the time when you need the changes done; i.e. the changes can in worst case wait for few years; then yes investing in Index fund would make sense. Else you are well off keeping this in savings. Try CD's if they can offer better rates for such durations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63fde89d7c05259fa2e50d06f04f7286",
"text": "Even straight index funds grow at about 6-7%. on average, or over long periods of time. In short time periods (quarters, years), they can fluctuate anywhere from -10% to +20%. Would you be happy if your bank account lost 10% of its value the week before you had to pay the bill for the repairs? Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? In general, no. Most investments are designed for long term appreciation. Even sophisticated financial companies can't do any better than 1 or 2% (annualized) on short-term cash reserves. Where you can make a huge difference is on the cost side. Bargain with suppliers, or wait for sales on retail items. Both will occasionally forego their margin on certain items in order to try to secure future business, which can make a difference of 20% or more in the cost of repairs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "237e2795a81504168d57af2169cf34ef",
"text": "I would agree with the other answers about it being a bad idea to invest in stocks in the short term. However, do consider also long-term repairs. For example, you should be prepared to a repair happening in 20 years in addition to repairs happening in a couple of months. So, if it is at all possible for you to save a bit more, put 2% of the construction cost of a typical new house (just a house, not the land the house is standing on) aside every year into a long-term repair fund and invest it into stocks. I would recommend a low-cost index fund or passive ETF instead of manually picking stocks. When you have a long-term repair that requires large amounts of money but will be good for decades to come, you will take some money out of the long-term repair fund. Where I live, houses cost about 4000 EUR per square meter, but most of that is the land and building permit cost. The actual construction cost is about 2500 EUR per square meter. So, I would put away 50 EUR per square meter every year. So, for example, for a relatively small 50 square meter apartment, that would mean 2500 EUR per year. There are quite many repairs that are long-term repairs. For example, in apartment buildings, plumbing needs to be redone every 40 years or so. Given such a long time period, it makes sense to invest the money into stocks. So, my recommendation would be to have two repair funds: short-term repairs and long-term repairs. Only the long-term repair fund should be invested into stocks.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "16741273c6cb8b6491a181cee2385490",
"text": "\"shouldn't withdraw stock investments for at least 5 years would be better re-phrased as: \"\"don't invest money in stocks if you (really) need it within next few years\"\". The underlying principle is: stocks are one of the higher-risk investment classes out there. While that's exactly what you want over a long time horizon (longer than the ebb and flow of the broader economy); if you know you'll definitely have to withdraw $50k (or any large chunk) of it within just a few years, it's possible that a great long-term vehicle like stocks, could actually rob you of money on a shorter time horizon. So if you want to start a business 2 years from now, you'll probably want to retain some of that $300k initial pile in lower-risk investment vehicles (e.g. bonds, CDs, certain ETFs and mutual funds aimed at \"\"capital preservation\"\", etc). That said, interest rates are so low, that if you're flexible with how much money you'll need to start that business, I'd probably keep as much as you can stomach in diversified stocks (per your original plan).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed0f6b8a67ef30833bad0c79d53fdb95",
"text": "If you need the money in the short-term, you want to invest in something fairly safe. These include saving accounts, CDs, and money market funds from someplace like Vanguard. The last two might give you a slightly better return than the local branch of a national bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0b6e828cc624c4765047924ac4790ed",
"text": "\"First: what's your risk tolerance? How long is your investment going to last? If it's a short-term investment (a few years) and you expect to break even (or better) then your risk tolerance is low. You should not invest much money in stocks, even index funds and \"\"defensive\"\" stocks. If, however, you're looking for a long-term investment which you will put money into continually over the next 30 years, the amount of stock you purchase at any given time is pretty small, so the money you might lose by timing the market wrong will also be rather small. Also, you probably do a remarkably poor job of knowing when to buy stocks. If you actually knew how to time the market to materially improve your risk-adjusted returns, you've missed your calling; you should be making six figures or more on Wall Street. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e147ee4363530039831bfe67c3df9573",
"text": "Yes though I'd likely put a caveat on that. If you take short-term investments and extrapolate the results to get an annual result this can be misleading. For example, if a stock goes up 10% in a month, assuming this will continue for the next 11 months may not be a great idea. Thus, beware of how much data do you have in making these calculations. When looking at long-term investments, the compound annual growth rate can be quite useful for comparison.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f43a0b7b433e2b4d389c13d44e373ed1",
"text": "\"Yes... but it is a matter of balancing risks. It is wiser to keep a small amount of \"\"ready cash\"\" as an emergency/buffer -- and to suffer the gradual loss to inflation... Than it is risk becoming \"\"stuck\"\" in an emergency with zero dollars in any (low or no cost) source of funds -- those kinds of \"\"emergencies\"\" ($500 or $1,000 \"\"unexpected/unbudgeted\"\" expenses) are fairly frequent and virtually inevitable. You lose vastly MORE money when you are forced to borrow those amounts (interest -- even **low-rate** loans -- is virtually always higher than the average inflation rate).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f65c29ad70352b2540083a191afa812",
"text": "\"Safe short term and \"\"pay almost nothing\"\" go hand in hand. Anything that is safe for the short term will not pay much in interest/appreciation. If you don't know what to do, putting it in a savings account is the safest thing. The purpose of that isn't to earn money, it's just to store the money while you figure out where to move it to earn money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12fd823d45e5e046592c8b8e6b1fc39f",
"text": "\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \"\"gut-check\"\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \"\"if\"\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bf61e35ec63477b8c2f5b3fb4c73e02",
"text": "In addition to what quid said, I think your risk tolerance should depend on how likely you are to need the funds in the near future. Say that you have $100k saved up and you want to decide how to invest it. Then you should ask yourself: The idea here is that if you invest say in stocks (high risk) then the value of your position could drop significantly and you'd potentially have to wait for a long time before it recovers. If you are forced to sell you could make a substantial loss. If you don't urgently need this cash, however, then you can feel relaxed and just wait for the market to reverse again. This is viewing risk through the lens of how likely it is that you'll have to wait a long time to get a substantial amount of your money back, which itself is a function of how likely it is for a substantial downturn to occur in a certain market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea390af4c36f7d00ae4953829b23ff9",
"text": "I like your enthusiasm and initiative. However, there are a few things you need to consider that you haven't yet thought about. First, it is important to remember that trading with fake money is not the same as trading with real money. In the fake world, you have $100k. With this fake money, you can do reckless things with it, such as put it all on one stock. If you lose, it costs you nothing, so you don't have an emotional attachment to it. With real money, it will feel different, and that is something you haven't experienced yet. Second, you mentioned that you are good at making picks. With all due respect, I suggest that you aren't old enough to make that determination. You haven't been trading for long enough to determine if you are doing well at it. :) That having been said, I don't want to completely discourage you from trying something new. Third, you mentioned long-term investing, but you also said that you need to make your money back quick and mentioned trading daily. Those things aren't really compatible. I wouldn't consider what you are doing as long-term investing. With the type of investing you are doing, picking individual stocks and hoping for the value to go up in a relatively short time-frame, it is similar to gambling. The risk of losing is very much there, and you shouldn't be investing money this way that you aren't prepared to lose. If you need the money for something soon, don't put it in the stock market. Never forget this. What can happen is that you start with small amounts of money, do well, and then, thinking that you are good at this, put in larger amounts of money. You will eventually lose. If you put in money that you need for something else, you have a problem. If you are trying this out for education and entertainment purposes, that is great. But when it starts to get serious, make sure that you are aware of the risks. Educate yourself and be smart. Here is what I would suggest: If you want to try this short-term day-trading type investing, and you understand that the money can easily be lost, I would balance that with investing in a more traditional way: Set aside an amount each month to put in a low-expense index mutual fund. Doing this will have several benefits for you: As for your specific questions about stock trading with small amounts: Yes, you can trade with small amounts; however, every time you trade, you will be paying a commission. Even with a discount broker, if you are trading frequently, the commissions you will be paying will be very significant at the dollar amounts you are talking about. The only way I can see around this would be to try the Robinhood app, which allows you to trade without paying sales commission. I have no experience with that app.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee8ce34548237d70ef4ce0e2c35a0a0e",
"text": "This is just a pedestrian (my) opinion: Yes, It is wise to invest in bond funds even in a low interest environment. Check out the lazy man's portfolio on bogleheads. The reason is:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8494c8583778b3b232a371c5728b6846",
"text": "Assuming you have no new cash to add to your account as gyurisc has suggested, I wouldn't sweat the small amounts – it doesn't hurt to have a little cash sit idle, even if you want to theoretically be fully invested (the wisdom of doing that, or not, perhaps worthy of another question :-) If you try too hard to invest the small amounts frequently, you're likely to get killed on fees. My strategy (if you could call it that) is to simply let small amounts accumulate until there's enough to buy more shares without paying too much commission. For instance, I don't like fees to be more than 1% of the shares purchased, so with a $10 commission per trade, I prefer to make minimum $1000 purchases. I used to roll small amounts of cash into a no-load money market fund I could buy without commission, and then purchase shares when I hit the threshold, but even putting the cash in a money market fund isn't worth the hassle today with rates of return from money market funds being close to zero.",
"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": "4211fc1afd54373a20f75de5b335e1da",
"text": "Yes, you can indeed become rich by investing even small amounts over time. Let's say that you begin with nothing invested, and you start investing $100 per week. Suppose you choose to put your money in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. The CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of the S&P 500 over the last 35 years has been about 11%. (That 35 years includes at least two fairly serious crashes.) You may get more or less than that number in the future, but let's guess that you'll average 9%. 35 years from now, you would be a millionaire ($1.2 Million, actually). This math works out for anyone, no matter who your parents are, where you are from, where you went to school, etc. Yes, you have a better chance of becoming wealthy the more you invest, the longer you have to stay invested, and the better choices you make in your investments. By starting early, you will maximize your time invested, which allows you the flexibility to be more conservative in your investments and to invest smaller amounts. But for those with a shorter time to invest, it is still doable for most people. Get your financial life under control by eliminating your debt, setting a household budget, and investing for the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "701044a51a7f47011eb598f92c1ca560",
"text": "Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
46605a347851a31c7579637a8a4fe317
|
Car Insurance - Black box has broken and insurance company wants me to pay?
|
[
{
"docid": "88d93fd72c2f70c40e0122c42f8b7025",
"text": "Unless it is in the contract that you must replace it then this should be replaced by your insurance. They sent you a box that was defective, consumer grade electronics are designed for at least 85 deg C (185F) and unless they can prove your car was hotter than that they sent you a defective unit. That being said, I do not think it would be worth suing them for that low amount, I would suggest you get a new insurance company. The current company clearly values your business less than 185 pounds(?) and this issue will happen multiple times since the company has no incentive to buy better products if customers keep footing the bill.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5179ee2a2b088d3e6208830013dbd8",
"text": "\"First read the fine print. If you have to pay it, pay it and switch company. If you don't have to pay it and there is no proof that you abused the component beyond normal usage, you don't have to sue them, just return the invoice with legal (not so layman) text like \"\"I hereby reject paying invoice number xxxx dated xxx because the black box was used under normal conditions and it stopped working\"\". In this case you wait for them and answer every other letter with the same text until the decide to either sue you, or drop the whole thing. If you choose this path, remember to save all invoice, copies of your rejections, all written/email/phone calls, picutres of the broken item, serial nubmers, contract etc. If they sue you and they loose (can't prove the item was destroied by you), they have to pay you up to one hour of legal advice cost and drop the invoice, if you loose, you do the same (100 pounds) plus the invoice amount according to Swedish law, don't know about your country. Before you follow any advice here, consult your local consumer protection agency, they usually comes up with smart options, they know a bad company with history and give you the right advice.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7421f097b776fb34d00007b3fe10bb32",
"text": "I haven't looked at that warranty in detail, but generally speaking this should help. What is GAP insurance? In the case of a total loss/write off gap insurance covers the outstanding finance after your regular insurance pay out. The two won't match up usually because of the depreciation right after you buy the car. For example, if you take out $20,000 finance and buy a car, then write it off after six months, your insurance company may only value it at $16,000 but it's unlikely you will have cleared $4,000 from your finance. Gap insurance will pay out the difference and settle the debt. Will Chrysler change the engine, if it comes to bhore? Yes, unless they identify misuse or deliberate damage. For instance, if you do 1000 miles and the engine explodes, it's a mechanical fault that the warranty would cover. If they open up the engine/look at diagnostics and find it's been thrashed to within an inch of it's life, they may claim it was your driving which has destroyed the engine and you would have to prove it was an underlying fault and would have blown either way. Will car dents be covered with this bumper to bumper insurance? Not likely, as I mentioned in the last point, if it's your fault it wouldn't be covered. I think you may be confusing the terms insurance and warranty at this point. Insurance would cover your dents but a warranty only covers the manufacturer's faults, even in the case of extended warranties. What does basic mean in terms of warranty? Sounds obvious, but whatever Chrysler want it to mean! There's no legal definition of 'basic' so you would need to check the documents thoroughly or ask them to explain exactly what is and isn't covered. If they're reluctant, it's probably because 'basic' covers very little...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c73e81e82c0d59a519f5f9f268ff482b",
"text": "You're trading a fixed liability for an unknown liability. When I graduated from college, I bought a nice used car. Two days later, a deer came out of nowhere, and I hit it going 70 mph on a highway. The damage? $4,500. If I didn't have comprehensive insurance, that would have been a real hit to me financially. For me, I'd rather just pay the modest cost for the comprehensive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f88b531c04cf735b69ff3d560e1167c4",
"text": "It's definitely broken window fallacy. The entire premise is that vehicle accidents cost money and productivity. If they can be avoided, we will be more productive. If we had technology that made car insurance obsolete, everyone in that industry could do another productive activity. Textbook broken window fallacy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2298ebfb5de33ae737aa535599ebd79f",
"text": "My dad runs an AV labor company (trade show setups etc) and his insurance company called him as they were finalizing his workers comp. They asked when he was submitting all of his employees drug screenings. My dad laughed at them and said he would not be submitting any. They told him his premium would be higher to which my dad replied that if he drug tested, he would have 4 people working for him and thus wouldn't even have a business - just send the bill.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71d7613dffbf77d038bc2d6ed139c3e2",
"text": "\"On top of the given answers, the type of referral will also factor in. When you're up for renewal and go to a comparison site (in the UK: CompareTheMarket, MoneySupermarket, Confused, GoCompare, ... ) and struggle accurately through all their lists of questions, you see that some of the data differs (e.g., not all the same jobs can be entered; if you have had an accident, not all ask whose fault it was and/or don't leave the option \"\"not yet resolved\"\" --possibly forcing you to guess which way it will be adjudicated,-- and/or what the total repair cost was). So as these referrers feed slightly different data to roughly the same set of insurance providers, you will get slightly different quotes on the same providers. And expect your own provider to offer a slightly better quote than you'll get in reality for renewing: The referrer's (one-time) cut has to be still taken off, but they count it as a new client so somebody gets a bonus for that --- you they disregard as a captive client and give what boils down to a loyalty penalty. [Case in point: I had an unresolved car accident, resolved months later in my favour. With all honest data including unresolved claim and its cost and putting my 'accident-free years' factor at 0 instead of 7, my old provider quoted about 8% more than the previous year on comparison sites; but my renewal papers quoted me 290% more, upon telephone enquiry the promised to refund the difference if court found in my favour though they refused to give this in writing. So: No thanks!] Then the other set of referrals they get is from you directly going to their website asking for a quote. They know what type of link you've followed (banner, or google result, etc), they may know some info from your browser's cookies (time spent where) or other tracking service, and from your data they may guess how tech-savvy and shop-wise you are, and scale your offer accordingly. [Comparison-site shoppers are lumped together at a relatively high savvy-level, of course!]. Companies breaking down your data and their own in a particular way can find advantages and hence offer you better terms, as said in the main answer (this is like Arbitration in stock exchanges, ensuring a certain amount of sanity: if there's something to exploit, somebody will, and everybody will follow). It may be that they find a certain group of people maybe more accident-prone but cheaper to deal with (more flexible in repair-times, or easy to bully in accepting shared-fault when they weren't at fault), or they want a certain client (for women, for civil servants, for sporty drivers, for homeowners --- often for cross-selling other insurance services). Or they claim to want pensioners because the company can offer them 'a familiar voice' (same account manager always contacting them) while they're easier to bamboozle and less likely to shop around when offered a rubbish deal. Also, 100% straight comparison of competing offers isn't possible as the fine details of the T&Cs (terms & conditions) would differ, as well as various little pinpricks in the claims handling process. And depreciation of a car, and various ways of dealing with it: You insure it for the buying prices, but two years later it's worth about 40% less on paper --- so in case of total loss, replacing like-for-like will cost you still at least 80% of the value for which you've been insuring it while they'll probably offer you the 100-40= 60%. Mostly because instead of your trusted car you have something unknown that may have hidden defects, or been mistreated and about to die. [Case in point: My 3-y-old dealer-bought car's gearbox died just outside the 6month warranty period, notwithstanding its \"\"150-item inspection you can rely on\"\". In the end the national brand agreed to refund the parts (15% of what I paid for the car) but not the labour (a few hours).] And any car model's value differs (in descending order) from its \"\"forecourt price\"\", \"\"private selling price\"\", \"\"part exchange price\"\", and \"\"auction price\"\". Depending on your ompanies may happily insure you for forecourt price (=what you paid to dealer) but then point out that the value of that car is the theoretical P/X value, i.e., the car without anybody's profit, far less than you've been paying for. [Conversely, if you crash it after insuring below market value, they can pay you your stupidly low figure.]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "624be7119d309f77ccbe708210bd6d79",
"text": "Here's your problem: The debt is valid and it is your debt, regardless of your arrangement with the insurance company. The insurance company (possibly) owes you money, and you owe the Doctor money. You are stuck in the middle, and in the end it doesn't matter whether the insurance company pays as to whether you owe the money. Don't ignore them. Also, disputing the debt it pointless because the truth is that you do owe the debt. The insurance company may owe you money (which is in dispute), but the debt to your medical provider is your own. You are just stuck in the middle. It sucks, but is pretty common. I think the best you can do is keep working on the insurance company and responding to the bill collectors letting them know that you are working on it and will need to pay late. In theory they deal with this a lot and probably understand, not that it will make them lay off you in the meantime. In the end it is possible you might have to sue the insurance company to get the money. One thing to be careful about: If the debt is fairly old (several years) you may want to avoid making partial payments because if this goes on your credit report, that payment may extend the period where the negative information can appear on your credit history.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f4bc315f09f7f8e774ac7636da8583a",
"text": "\"One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (\"\"premium\"\") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit*. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. *Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2e56eec51fa0c7f632286583267210f",
"text": "\"I think at this point you and the other person who seems to ask this question in multiple permutations needs to talk to a local expert rather than continuing to ask the same questions with slight fact variations. This all happened when you were 9. If you think there was foul play involved, at the minimum it will be difficult to prove 16 years on. Somehow I doubt there are 2 people on Toronto whose parents bought them whole life insurance policies in 2000 asking the same questions at the same time. If you don't want the coverage or you think the whole thing was a mistake, cash the policy out. According to the other question about this policy there's nearly $7,000 of cash value there. Just take the money out and move on with your life. Unless you're willing to sue your \"\"mentally ill\"\" mother over the $1,500 net loss ($530 premium times 16 years minus $7,000 cash value) I'm not sure what recourse or advice you're looking for. And even that assumes she's paying the premium with your money. Separately, if your mother is the owner of the policy and paying with her money I'm not sure why this involves you at all. Parents buy life insurance on their children all the time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9898784d2a734bcb80dcf5e954f19d2c",
"text": "\"I decline politely. The cost of the insurance policy has two components: The actual cost of a likely repair + profit. If I set aside the cost of a likely repair myself, then I get to keep the profit. If the item doesn't break, I get to keep the \"\"repair\"\" money too :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3d1d1655a87ac529a48a251da092425",
"text": "It's always hard to know the exact policy terms, but as a general rule there are two main contributions to insurance payouts. The first part covers expenses aimed at restoring the situation to its previous state pre-incident. This may include repair work and materials etcetera. The second part kicks in when it's not reasonably possible to repair the damage, or at least not in a financially efficient way. In this case, the insurer can decide to pay out the decrease in value. This is in fact very common in car accidents, where the car is a total loss. In your case, it's quite possible that your roof, even with the two partial repairs is in a worse condition than it was before the storm. For instance, the new shingles may not match the old ones exactly. Thus the value of your home has decreased despite the reasonable repair attempt. And as mhoran_psprep points out, there can be hidden damage as well, which is a lurking liability. If you've accepted the cash payment in lieu of a full repair, you also accept the roof in its new condition.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6cd27e3c2f8b12e4334eb3d747c96c3",
"text": "The hospital likely has a contract with your insurance company which makes them obligated to bill the insurance before billing you! I had a similar occurrence that was thrown out when my insurance company provided a copy of a contract with the hospital to the judge. So if there is an agreement they must file with the insurance in timely manner.",
"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": "4c8ab016ba8ba1c11255121f568d9015",
"text": "You're on the right track with buying clunkers, but letting your current cars get repossessed is a bad idea for the reasons you specified. First, find an insurance broker instead of an insurance agent. A broker works with dozens of companies, many of which you may not have heard of. He is in a better position to find you the best deal than you are because he is familiar with more insurance company products than you are. He doesn't charge you extra for this service. Second, ask your insurance broker if he can find any insurers offering discounts for persons who have passed a driver training course. Find an accredited course and determine pricing. If the savings exceed the cost of the course, take the course. Third, if you have outstanding loans on your vehicles, pay them off and sell the cars. Replace them with vehicles you can purchase outright with cash. Make sure you have enough money to replace them again should another accident happen. Once you have vehicles that are lein-free there is no longer a requirement by the lender for you to have insurance for the replacement value of the vehicle, which is what's killing your rates right now. Find out what the minimum legal requirement for auto insurance is in your state. In Canada, the minimum requirement is $100,000 liability. Anything else is either a sales job or a lender requirement. Getting your wife to insure her own vehicle may help, getting your insurance under her name may also be something to look into. Since you seem to have issues with people bumping into you and there have been no medical issues, $100,000 liability may be all you need. Note: Tactic #3 is not without risk. If you are in an at-fault accident, you will have to pay for any damages exceeding your insured limit out of your own pocket. Any damages to your own vehicle whether at-fault or not will have to be paid out of your own pocket. If you are sued for medical expenses incurred by other parties, you'll have to pay anything over and above your insured limit out of your own pocket. If there is anything you are unclear about on your insurance policy, ask your agent/broker to explain until you do understand. Buying auto insurance without fully understanding what you are paying for is another risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fad58094dff5fc338f65e7c6a7e0b9c",
"text": "This depends on the jurisdiction, but such companies are typically subject to regulations (and audits) that require them to keep the customers' accumulated premiums very strictly separated from the company's own assets, liabilities and expenses. Additionally, they are typically only allowed to invest the capital in very safe things like government bonds. So, unless something truly catastrophic happens (like the US government defaulting on its bonds) or people in the company break the regulations (which would invovle all kinds of serious crimes and require complicity or complete failure of the auditors), your premiums and the contractual obligation to you would still be there, and would be absorbed by a different insurance company that takes over the defunct company's business. Realistically, what all this means is that insurance companies never go bankrupt; if they do badly, they are typically bought up by a competitor long before things get that bad.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b9744b59457827b0e7f34ff6a5988f43
|
Can I deduct equipment that I'm required to purchase by my employer?
|
[
{
"docid": "9379f5ad0e097a21cb007559a3207893",
"text": "It looks like you can. Take a look at these articles: http://www.googobits.com/articles/1747-taking-an-itemized-deduction-for-job-expenses.html http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/business-expenses-that-benefit-you.aspx http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/employment.html But of course, go to the source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html#en_US_publink100026912 From publication 529: You can deduct certain expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR). You can claim the amount of expenses that is more than 2% of your adjusted gross income. You figure your deduction on Schedule A by subtracting 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total amount of these expenses. Your adjusted gross income is the amount on Form 1040, line 38, or Form 1040NR, line 36. I hope that helps. Happy deducting!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4feb648016f073df68bca025da36bfd5",
"text": "\"Hobby expenses are not tax deductible. Business expenses are, but only if it's a bona fide business. First they look at profitability: if you reported a net profit (i.e. paid taxes) in your first 3 years, they will believe you rant on Youtube for a living. Remember, by the time they get around to auditing you, you'll likely be well into, or through, your third year. There is an exception for farms. Other than that, if you lose money year after year, you better be able to show that you look, walk and quack like a business; and one with a reasonable business reason for delayed profitability. For instance Netflix's old business model of mailing DVDs had very high fixed infrastructure expense that took years to turn profitable, but was a very sensible model. They're fine with that. Pets.com swandived into oblivion but they earnestly tried. They're fine with that too. You can't mix all your activities. If you're an electrician specializing in IoT and smart homes, can you deduct a trip to the CES trade show, you bet. Blackhat conference, arguable. SES? No way. Now if you had a second business of a product-reco site which profited by ads and affiliate links, then SES would be fine to deduct from that business. But if this second business loses money every year, it's a hobby and not deductible at all. That person would want separate accounting books for the electrician and webmaster businesses. That's a basic \"\"duck test\"\" of a business vs. a hobby. You need to be able to show how each business gets income and pays expense separate from every other business and your personal life. It's a best-practice to give each business a separate checking account and checkbook. You don't need to risk tax penalties on a business-larva that may never pupate. You can amend your taxes up to 3 years after the proper filing date. I save my expense reciepts for each tax year, and if a business becomes justifiable, I go back and amend past years' tax forms, taking those deductions. IRS gives me a refund check, with interest!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fab076774b036cd9084c4f5e2bad63c9",
"text": "I'm not an expert, but here's my $0.02. Deductions for business expenses are subject to the 2% rule. In other words, you can only deduct that which exceeds 2% of your AGI (Adjusted Gross Income). For example, say you have an AGI of $50,000, and you buy a laptop that costs $800. You won't get a write-off from that, because 2% of $50,000 is $1,000, and you can only deduct business-related expenses in excess of that $1,000. If you have an AGI of $50,000 and buy a $2,000 laptop, you can deduct a maximum of $1,000 ($2,000 minus 2% of $50,000 is $2,000 - $1,000 = $1,000). Additionally, you can write off the laptop only to the extent that you use it for business. So in other words, if you have an AGI of $50,000 and buy that $2,000 laptop, but only use it 50% for business, you can only write off $500. Theoretically, they can ask for verification of the business use of your laptop. A log or a diary would be what I would provide, but I'm not an IRS agent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a24e8c7fb56eacce57030b2d4d34c3c",
"text": "For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe6de11870b7339c3adcb7bc5630624f",
"text": "Yes, if they meet the ATO's criteria. Books, periodicals and digital information If the item cost less than $300 you can claim an immediate deduction where it satisfies all of the following requirements: http://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/Deductions-you-can-claim/Other-deductions/Books,-periodicals-and-digital-information/ Alternatively They may be a self-education expense http://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/Deductions-you-can-claim/Self-education-expenses/ A Further Alternative They could fall into the tool, equipment or other asset category if they are for a professional library (this can include a home office). http://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/Deductions-you-can-claim/Tools,-equipment-and-other-assets/ I understand this is an old question although given the dead link in the above answer and the new resources this answer might prove helpful for others coming across this question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ba79cc552d47f900a08881f2c79d879",
"text": "You can deduct this if the main purpose of the trip is to attend the seminar. Travel expenses relating to the attendance at conferences, seminars and other work-related events are deductible to the extent that they relate to your income-producing activities. You will need to apportion your travel expenses where you undertake both work-related and private activities. Travel costs to and from the location of the work-related event will only be deductible where the primary purpose of the travel was to attend the event. Accommodation, food and other incidental costs must be apportioned between work-related and private activities taking into account the types of activities that you did on the day you incurred the cost. You might like to consider in advance what you would tell them if they questioned this - for instance you might say (if they are true):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d10dc098910fd96ac0955daee855f5ab",
"text": "You can depreciate equipment as a valid expense, even for a sole proprietorship. The concept is simple, but the details are pretty complicated (and probably even more so given the added complexities of agricultural economics). Definitely speak to an accountant who specializes in the field.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f35cdefe4d37dced6edcef4c60a2dbc2",
"text": "\"In the US service animals are treated like durable medical equipment from a tax POV, and some expenses can be deducted. Likewise, expenses associated with working animals are business or hobby expenses than can be deducted to a certain extent. But pets, no. Legally they are \"\"chattels\"\" -- property that can move. Generally speaking, you can't deduct the cost of maintaining your belongings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1bf45ddcbca898af994b39c75a2d143",
"text": "\"No, you can't deduct any of that. What they're talking about is a flexible spending plan, otherwise known as \"\"Use it or lose it\"\" money. You choose to put pre-tax dollars into a restricted fund. This money is not taxed, in fact technically, it's not even income. You can only spend out of that fund to buy parking, tolls, transit tickets, things like that. Any money not used for those purposes in a suitable time period evaporates. Gone, and irrecoverable. You can't even take the loss as a tax deduction! You have to set this account up with your employer. You can't just dig up your old transit and parking receipts and stick those on your Schedule A. Take 3 people. As you can see, Fran is shooting herself in the foot. This is where these plans can go wrong.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dba9b07b320be09c13482ec51eb32fac",
"text": "I think you might be missing something important here. If you are running a business, then any expenses that your business incurs are deductible. Yes, Kickstarter would report the full amount. The IRS requires them to report everything that you raised. However, the Kickstarter and Amazon fees would be a business expense. Your cost on the backer rewards are deductible business expenses as well. Legal fees, accounting fees: deductible. Money that you spend on equipment may not be deductible all in one year; you may have to depreciate it over multiple years. This is where the accountant that you are paying accounting fees to will come in handy. People who do an iOS app Kickstarter campaign for $5000 might have a few things going on that you don't:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa6ac06db3552d08eda4e4d6ff3339b3",
"text": "Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2c0ee6cdbc67b58bdec4983dbec7a49",
"text": "\"It depends on what the \"\"true\"\" reason for the trip is. If you decide to deduct the trip as a business expense, then during an audit you will be asked why you had to go there. If there was nothing accomplished via the travel (that is, you worked from the hotel, met with no clients, visited no tradeshows, etc) then the expense is unlikely to be allowed. Yes, on a business trip you can do sightseeing if you wish (though you can't deduct any sightseeing specific expenses, like admission to a tourist attraction), but if you are just working while on vacation, then the trip itself is not deductible, since there was no business benefit to traveling in the first place.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58348661c55700b23bf1552586d40b29",
"text": "Assuming that it's not inventory that is sold in the following year or a depreciable asset, you can deduct it when you make the purchase. The courts have ruled that credit cards balances are considered debt. It's treated the same way as if you went to the bank, got a loan, and used cash or a check to purchase the items. On your accounting books, you would debit the expense account and credit the credit card liability account. This is only for credit cards, which are considered loans. If you use a store charge card, then you cannot deduct it until you pay. Those are considered accounts payable. I'm an IRS agent and a CPA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f395c55d7f9fd1f519a973966956ddbe",
"text": "The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39f3a8221f16c84c72aefff9e8144049",
"text": "To quote the answer you linked to: Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. So, if your business purchased the $1000 gift card for $800, you should see a $800 charge appearing on a business CC or bank statement. You would therefore be able to deduct the $800, but not the full $1000 of items that you purchase with it. Side Notes:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af94bde04c5e56fce68e17efd75ae0cc",
"text": "The short answer is yes you probably can take the deduction for a home office because the space is used exclusively and you are working there for the convenience of your employer if you don't have a desk at your employers office. The long answer is that it may not be worth it to take the home office deduction as an employee. You're deduction is subject to a 2% AGI floor. You can only deduct a percentage of your rent or the depreciation on your home. A quick and dirty example if you make $75k/year, rent a 1200 sqft 2 bedroom apartment for $1000/month and use one bedroom (120 sqft) regularly and exclusively for your employer. You can deduct 10% (120sqft/1200sqft) of the $12000 ($1000*12 months (assumes your situation didn't change)) in rent or $1200. However because you are an employee you are subject to the 2% AGI floor so you can deduct $1200-$1500 (75000*.02 (salary * 2% floor)) = -300 so in order to deduct the first dollar you need an additional $300 worth of deductible expenses. Depending on your situation it may or may not be worth it to take the home office deduction even if you qualify for it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cb3f24852c5c7dc5c83ae3cfa2822b14
|
Is there any instrument with real-estate-like returns?
|
[
{
"docid": "bbb9c1dab71e1a4e1576c568d093714b",
"text": "Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8e0cd198acc054563b2aec379fdbc074",
"text": "If you are tired of acting as the bank after selling your Real Estate and owner-financing the loan with a promissory note, we can offer a sound and painless exit strategy today. We can fund the purchase in as little as 15 business days. We at Cash Note USA buy Real Estate Promissory Notes Nationwide. We Purchase Owner Financed Mortgage, Land Contract, Contract For Deed, Deed Of Trust, Private Mortgages, Secured Notes, Business Notes, Commercial Notes and Partial Notes and many kinds of seller carry back mortgage notes. Convert Real Estate Note To Cash Now.Sell Your Mortgage Note Fast & get More Cash For Your Note. You will get a Fair Offer Within 24 Hours.Get your Note cashed today! Cash Note USA is a note buyer all over the nation. Convert your mortgage payments into cash. Simple closing process. We buy Promissory Notes, Real Estate Trust Deeds, Seller Carry Back Notes, Land Contract, Contract for Deed, Privately Help Notes, Commercial Mortgage Notes & Business Promissory Notes. Contact Us: Cash Note USA 1307 W.6th St.Suite 219N, Corona, CA 92882 888-297-4099 [email protected] http://cashnoteusa.com/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2957071718c3125aae989498d051224",
"text": "I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31c5ac8c41c0019f73a79c19208dd61e",
"text": "Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle. Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a121c4f397ec5791d0fcf6b3cbdeb2e",
"text": "\"One way to \"\"get into the real estate market\"\" is to invest your money in a fund which has its value tied to real estate. For example, a Real Estate Investment Trust. This fund would fluctuate largely inline with the property values in the area(s) where the fund puts its money. This would have a few (significant) changes from 'traditional' real estate investing, including:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bd43884a9d185524af6a2230f569e8c",
"text": "Your question may have another clue. You are bullish regarding the real estate market. Is that for your city, your state, your nation or for the whole world? Unless you can identify particular properties or neighborhoods that are expected to be better than the average return for your expected bull market in real estate, you will be taking a huge risk. It would be the same as believing that stocks are about to enter a bull market, but then wanting to put 50% of your wealth on one stock. The YTD for the DOW is ~+7%, yet 13 of the 30 have not reached the average increase including 4 that are down more than 7%. Being bullish about the real estate segment still gives you plenty of opportunities to invest. You can invest directly in the REIT or you can invest in the companies that will grow because of the bullish conditions. If your opinion changes in a few years it is hard to short a single property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fac469245c0605d033cba9fca4684cc3",
"text": "Reasons for no: In your first sentence you say something interesting: rates low - prices high. Actually those 2 are reversely correlated, imagine if rates would be 5% higher-very few people could buy at current prices so prices would drop. Also you need to keep in mind the rate of inflation that was much higher during some periods in the US history(for example over 10% in the 1980) so you can not make comparisons just based on the nominal interest rate. Putting all your eggs in one basket. If you think real estate is a good investment buy some REITs for 10k, do not spend 20% of your future income for 20 years. Maintenance - people who rent usually underestimate this or do not even count it when making rent vs mortgage comparisons. Reasons for yes: Lifestyle decision - you don't want to be kicked out of your house, you want to remodel... Speculation - I would recommend against this strongly, but housing prices go up and down, if they will go up you can make a lot of money. To answer one of questions directly: 1. My guess is that FED will try to keep rates well bellow 10% (even much lower, since government can not service debts if interest rates go much higher), but nobody can say if they will succeed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74b1000ebe616ec1d7efb65f43d157f6",
"text": "Apples and oranges. The stock market requires a tiny bit of your time. Perhaps a lot if you are interested in individual stocks, and pouring through company annual reports, but close to none if you have a mix of super low cost ETFs or index fund. The real estate investing you propose is, at some point, a serious time commitment. Unless you use a management company to handle incoming calls and to dispatch repair people. But that's a cost that will eat into your potential profits. If you plan to do this 'for real,' I suggest using the 401(k), but then having the option to take loans from it. The ability to write a check for $50K is pretty valuable when buying real estate. When you run the numbers, this will benefit you long term. Edit - on re-reading your question Rental Property: What is considered decent cash flow? (with example), I withdraw my answer above. You overestimated the return you will get, the actual return will likely be negative. It doesn't take too many years of your one per year strategy to wipe you out. Per your comment below, if bought right, rentals can be a great long term investment. Glad you didn't buy the loser.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0ed194077d49ea34d04257f3a56dc3d",
"text": "Realistically, it is CDs with longer terms or are callable. You pretty much have to accept more risk if you want higher returns. If you are willing to accept that risk by losing the FDIC protections the next level up is probably high rated Government bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef20c2eeb309e86103342ac03ce8e921",
"text": "You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d16189759e51343e7ecb4ac89cf8ce81",
"text": "would buying the stock of a REIT qualify as a 'Like-Kind' exchange? Short answer, no. Long answer, a 1031 (Starker) exchange only applies to real estate. From the Wikipedia page on the topic: To qualify for Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the properties exchanged must be held for productive use in a trade or business, or for investment. Stocks, bonds, and other properties are listed as expressly excluded by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, although securitized properties are not excluded. A REIT, being stock in a real estate company, is excluded from Section 1031.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8920dfc811304724fd604a06d0c91b13",
"text": "Ok, have your father 'sell' you the house with a RECORDED land contract for x dollars and a gift of equity(GOE) of y. He writes of the max he can each year for the GOE (ask a tax attorney on this one), and your cousin lends him the money for his FL prop. Consult a tax attorney on the capital gains, but you can write off the actualized gains at sale if you LIVED in the prop for 2 of the last 5 or 7 years (I can't remember) and were on title. Years later, you use the recorded land contract, with the verifiable on time payments you've been making, to a conforming lender and do a R&T refi.",
"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": "9e2514f7b41ead8b0f37d702fcf7fbd2",
"text": "well yes but you should also begin to understand the sectoral component of real estate as a market too in that there can be commercial property; industrial property and retail property; each of which is capable of having slightly (tho usually similar of course) different returns, yields, and risks. Whereas you are saving to buy and enter into the residential property market which is different again and valuation principles are often out of kilter here because Buying a home although exposing your asset base to real estate risk isnt usually considered an investment as it is often made on emotional grounds not strict investment criteria.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89cc2b6694f315a40c76c1cee002a052",
"text": "\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0fd5f580d29bb7dc0d3a235d31ffdf2",
"text": "\"All of these frameworks, Markowitz, Mean/CVaR, CARA, etc sit inside a more general framework which is that \"\"returns are good\"\" and \"\"risk/lack of certainty in the returns is bad\"\", and there's a tradeoff between the two encoded as some kind of risk aversion number. You can measure \"\"lack of certainty in returns\"\" by vol, CVaR, weighted sum of higher moments, but even sector/region concentration. Similarly do I want more \"\"returns\"\" or \"\"log returns\"\" or \"\"sqrt returns\"\" in the context of this tradeoff? You don't need any formal notion of utility at that point - and I don't know what formal ideas of utility beyond \"\"I want more returns and less risk\"\" really buys you. The Sharpe ratio only really gets its meaning because you've got some formal asset-pricing notion of utility. In my view the moment that you're putting constraints on the portfolio (e.g. long only, max weights, don't deviate too much from the benchmark ...) - really you're operating in this more general framework anyway and you're not in \"\"utility-land\"\" anymore.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2e62f76d1c2c62eaf4bea7d4fe6142eb
|
Stocks taxed just for selling, or just when withdrawing?
|
[
{
"docid": "2b8dfeee6d62f5c2f309e254cdfbd111",
"text": "Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e7755a6f32703383033991e87a91c23",
"text": "It is not a dump question because it concerns your most important invisible financial partner:the taxman. The answer depends of the legal status of this account. If your account is 401(k) in USA or RRSP in Canada, the answer is no. No capital gain taxes if your money is registered for retirement. You'll pay later on, as taxes are like death, unavoidable. Yes capital gain if your money is not in an retirement account. As soon as you realize a capital gain, it becomes taxable in that fiscal year.",
"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": "47d1bf3a9f7853133fac81955ed45b8c",
"text": "I think what you're asking is, Can I buy 1000 shares of the stock at $1. For $1000. it goes up to $2, then sell 500 shares of the stock with proceeds of $1000, now having my original $1000 out of it, and still owning 500 shares. And that not create a taxable event. Since all I did was take my cost basis back out, and didn't collect any gains. And then I want to repeat that over and over. Nope, not in the USA anyway. Each sale is a separate taxable event. The first sale will have proceeds of $1000 and a cost basis of $500, with $500 of capital gains, and taxes owed at the time of that sale. The remaining stock will have a cost basis of $500 and proceeds of whatever you sell it for in the future. The next batch of stock will have a cost basis of whatever you pay for it. The only thing that works anything like the way you're thinking, is a Roth IRA... You can put your cost basis in, pull it back out, and put it back in again, all tax free. But every time your cost basis cycles in, that counts towed your contribution limits unless you do it fast enough to call it a rollover.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "494c34a83089d0334a2aadf6ea57f290",
"text": "You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87b1311ea060117cc2ce42d5a0981452",
"text": "Purchasing stock doesn't affect your immediate taxes any more than purchasing anything else, unless you purchase it through a traditional 401k or some other pre-tax vehicle. Selling stock has tax effects; that's when you have a gain or loss to report.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0135bf2ab914c53905961d531f2b4ae1",
"text": "My understanding was that if they cash out they only have to pay capital gains tax on it, which is lower than income tax for their bracket. You also have to think about tax on dividends from these stock options, which is only 15%, which is paltry to regular incometax rate that the rich pay on their salaries. According to Wikipedia: Congress passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which included some of the cuts Bush requested and which he signed into law on May 28, 2003. Under the new law, qualified dividends are taxed at the same rate as long-term capital gains, which is 15 percent for most individual taxpayers Anyways, SOMETHING needs to be done.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17c82c8934c11cba29787c4df49b7d52",
"text": "In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6210d2897e4211bf4057a4113912c180",
"text": "The question seems to be from the point of view actual sales and not its impact on one's taxation. In case you just want to sell, why brokers will respond differently each times. Either there may be issues with ownership and/or the company whose shares it is? In case you feel that the issues lies with brok",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f05a577b8e104eb30a83b40795f6836",
"text": "\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3d239c130b81bd9fa913591c6178870",
"text": "The thing you get wrong is that you think the LLC doesn't pay taxes on gains when it sells assets. It does. In fact, in many countries LLC are considered separate entities for tax properties and you have double taxation - the LLC pays its own taxes, and then when you withdraw the money from the LLC to your own account (i.e.: take dividends) - you pay income tax on the withdrawal again. Corporate entities usually do not have preferential tax treatment for investments. In the US, LLC is a pass-though entity (unless explicitly chosen to be taxed as a corporation, and then the above scenario happens). Pass-through entities (LLCs and partnerships) don't pay taxes, but instead report the gains to the owners, which then pay taxes as if the transaction was their personal one. So if you're in the US - investing under LLC would have no effect whatsoever on your taxes, or adverse effect if you chose to treat it as a corporation. In any case, investing in stocks is not a deductible expense, and as such doesn't reduce profits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93b6457e8a48c4363e86f317dbc0934e",
"text": "From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "923403f0704091c3e4cf237f5f4586ce",
"text": "Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e302eab9753e7ec9c3d02022d8967f7",
"text": "Did you read what I wrote? I sold some stock for a gain, that's a taxable event. Are you trying to say I just shouldn't have sold it? Do you understand investing at all? And the second point is moot, I still had to pay the tax, having write offs doesn't change the fact that my taxes were higher(more importantly that they would have been much higher if I couldn't take advantage of capital gains.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a29bc9daace3bb22abab63901b4fe3a3",
"text": "I wrote about this in another answer: You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend). Since you haven't sold the shares in the market yet, you haven't earned any income on the shares. You don't owe taxes on the scrip until you sell the shares and earn capital gains on them. HMRC is very explicit about this, in CG33800: It is quite common for a company, particularly a quoted company, to offer its shareholders the option of receiving additional shares instead of a cash dividend. The expression `stock or scrip dividend' is used to describe shares issued in such circumstances. The basic position under tax law is that when a company makes a bonus issue of shares no distribution arises, and the bonus issue of shares is not income for tax purposes in the hands of the recipient. Obviously, if this is an issue for you, talk to a tax professional to make sure you get it right.",
"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": "58f0282390616c8cc23b83c6f47c8446",
"text": "If you are inside of a ROTH IRA you are not getting taxed on any gain. Dividends, distributions, interest payment, or capital gains are never taxed. This, of course, assumes you wait until age 59.5 to do ROTH withdrawals on your gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e37a0bedf04922bb9fa43fd2c0e00b4",
"text": "The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
19732ecedbf42053db2d72081597b99f
|
Mexican Index Mutual Funds
|
[
{
"docid": "49080bb18e7e57c5f67ab948d03e22b9",
"text": "\"The recommendations you read were, very probably, talking about US listed funds in US dollars. The mexican Bolsa de Valores says that they list over 600 mutual funds so \"\"Yes\"\" you can invest in Mexico using Pesos if that is what you want. You need a Corredor de Bolsa or mexico broker. Here they are. Most international investors use exchange traded funds ETF because theirs fees are cheaper than mutual funds. The ETF are mostly listed and traded in us stock exchange. Here they are. US mutual funds are in dollars and, because you are living in Mexico, you will have a currency risk and probably taxes. Mexico mutual funds in Pesos do not carry any currency exposure unless the companies involved do business in the United States. You have to think about your currency exposure. B. Veo\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9a71e54c51a33edaa86448edea5040c1",
"text": "Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b203f5e786001b6923c2aee538fae4e",
"text": "Personally, I invest in mutual funds. Quite a bit in index funds, some in capital growth & international.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "445f3efc2c8bd10a811cef2d6b9aa778",
"text": "\"Nobody knows for sure what \"\"substantially identical\"\" means because the IRS hasn't officially defined it. Until they do so, it would come down to the decision of an auditor or a tax court. The rule of thumb that I have always heard is if the funds track the same index, they are probably substantially identical. I think most people wouldn't consider any pair of AGG, CMF, and NYF to be substantially identical, so you should be safe with your tax-loss harvesting strategy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2051b0442778b10df3a99b7fb3ac4b96",
"text": "\"That share class may not have a ticker symbol though \"\"Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index\"\" does have a ticker for \"\"Investor A\"\" shares that is BDOAX. Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways. Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider. Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd36cc84ea10cfdc1920099d015b5085",
"text": "Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b846ba9a563c7b403f519847b85447c8",
"text": "No, some of Vanguard's funds are index funds like their Total Stock Market Index and 500 Index. In contrast, there are funds like Vanguard PRIMECAP and Vanguard Wellington that are actively managed. There are index funds in both open-end and exchange-traded formats. VTI is the ticker for Vanguard's Total Stock Market ETF while VTSMX is an open-end mutual fund format. VOO would be the S & P 500 ETF ticker while VFINX is one of the open-end mutual fund tickers, where VIIIX has a really low expense ratio but a pretty stiff minimum to my mind. As a general note, open-end mutual funds will generally have a 5 letter ticker ending in X while an ETF will generally be shorter at 3 or 4 letters in length.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93272704c3255f614b4bc281253cb3a1",
"text": "The Telegraph had an interesting article recently going back 30 years for Mutual's in the UK that had beaten the market and trackers for both IT and UT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11489789/The-funds-that-have-returned-more-than-12pc-per-year-for-THIRTY-years.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7129104fb2ab770f186c5882f2e6074c",
"text": "\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0bdf37369e5c276708f779ca4706875",
"text": "The NYSE 20 Year Plus Treasury Bond Index (AXTWEN) is a multiple-security fixed income index that aims to track the total returns of the long-term 20 year and greater maturity range of the U.S. Treasury bond market. The index constituent bonds are weighted by their relative amounts outstanding.One cannot directly invest in an Index. Index Bond Maturities 24 to 27 Years 20.36% /27 to 29 Years 79.64% Index Duration 17.47 Years An oversimplification of how bonds value changes as rates change is they are inversely related based on the duration of the bond. Think of duration as the time-weighted average of all the coupons and the final payment. In this case, a drop in rates of about 1% will cause a rise in value of about 17.4%. Long term rates took a drop in the last year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5b49a3a8fa4b6fa8cd2bfec13bd22e7",
"text": "\"There are basically two different markets for ADRs and ordinary shares. 1) The American market, 2) the \"\"local\"\" market. The following is not true for most stocks in \"\"developed\"\" markets. But it is often true that the American market (for ADRs) is far more liquid than the local market for ordinary shares of a developing country. For instance, there was a time when the ADRs of Telmex (Telefonos of Mexico) was the fifth most traded stock in the world, after Exxon (before its merger with Mobil), IBM, Microsoft, and A T&T, meaning that it was easy to trade with low fees on the NYSE. It was much harder and slower to buy the local shares of Telmex in Mexico, on the Mexican exchange. Also, the accompanying currency transactions were harder to execute with the ord, because you have to settle in local currency and pay an FX commission. With the ADR, the exchange rate is \"\"built\"\" into the (dollar) price, and you settle in dollars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40265e05dd1b8d3e5da68a36066c3c9d",
"text": "\"I am guessing that when you say \"\"FRENCH40\"\" and \"\"GERMAN30\"\" you are referring to the main French and German stock market indices. The main French index is the CAC-40 with its 40 constituent companies. The main German index is the DAX, which has 30 constituents. The US30 is presumably the Dow Jones Index which also has 30 constituents. These are stock market indices that are used to measure the value of a basket of shares (the index constituents). As the value of the constituents change, so does the value of the index. There are various financial instruments that allow investors to profit from movements in these indices. It is those people who invest in these instruments that profit from price movements. The constituent companies receive no direct benefit or profit from investor trading in these instruments, nor does the government.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "862701abf9ce54de7a4210aa28b673a8",
"text": "I will be messaging you on [**2021-06-15 14:54:56 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2021-06-15 14:54:56 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of [**this link.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/6cvvei/a_hedge_fund_manager_is_supporting_a_free_masters/dixuco3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/6cvvei/a_hedge_fund_manager_is_supporting_a_free_masters/dixuco3]%0A%0ARemindMe! 4 years ) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete Comment&message=Delete! dixvaea) _____ |[^(FAQs)](http://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/)|[^(Custom)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!)|[^(Your Reminders)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List Of Reminders&message=MyReminders!)|[^(Feedback)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBotWrangler&subject=Feedback)|[^(Code)](https://github.com/SIlver--/remindmebot-reddit)|[^(Browser Extensions)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/4kldad/remindmebot_extensions/) |-|-|-|-|-|-|",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78f02faa5a9d18d087adf13be5edcf1f",
"text": "Bitfinexnetwork is a portfolio management program headquartered in London (UK). We already have a plant set-up that mines ethereum and G-CAS. Our plant or mining pool is in China. We mine crypto currencies and trade them further. People buy servers and lease back to us. When they lease them back, we offer them to participate in the output that we receive in the form of ‘’fixed returns’’. Bitfinexnetwork is India’s first portfolio management program that has a physical presence in sec 63, Noida. To maintain transparency among our members, anyone is allowed to come and meet us and have complete knowledge about the crypto world. We have taken official API from Bitfinex.com for trading purpose. Just to clarify, this is the only relationship between Bitfinex.com and Bitfinexnetwork.com. Our goal is to make mining and trading accessible to all users regardless of age, location, investment, technical nouse or experience. We want to give our customers an opportunity to try out cryptocurrency mining and earn Bitcoin as a reward. On a larger scale, we hope to contribute to the development of mining services and subsequently to the development, establishment and adoption of Bitcoin both as a currency and as an economic system",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f888867b198b061e1afe6774f02c704",
"text": "As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72fc81b3b8029581818dc18f64cc52af",
"text": "Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9cf4aec9021b1e68600aff74ba4d11a3
|
Simple loan with a mortage as collateral
|
[
{
"docid": "cf4ebb2f45e209ce6aed1eb9814a36ff",
"text": "\"Obligatory \"\"Don't do it\"\" remarks: If the guy isn't trusted enough to even show up to work, and can't get a personal loan directly from a bank (Home Equity Line of Credit would suffice), this is really setting things up for failure. What if he quits? What if you need to fire him (you know, for not showing up for weeks)? </rant> In order to be able to place a lien on his home should he default on the loan, you'll need to draft up a loan agreement or promissory note stating specifically that you have the right to do so. Get a lawyer involved. Here's an article that talks about setting up a Private Home Loan, which is geared more at helping someone buy a home, but may prove useful in this case as well: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/borrowing-from-family-friends-buy-29649.html It's pretty lengthy, so I won't quote it out here, but the gist of it is: Get everything in writing in a legally binding contract.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72eed75865cf38a35de154505afa0fe3",
"text": "Assuming United States; answer may be different elsewhere. The best instructions I have seen for this were on the webpage of one of the law firms making an organized business out of intra-family loans, but any lawyer who can deal with normal bank loans should be able to help you set this up and get it filed with the appropriate authorities to make it a legally binding mortgage. Shouldn't cost you much in legal time to do it. You will have to charge interest; your lawyer can tell you what the minimum and maximimum interest rates would be where you are. Your interest income will be taxable. The borrower may or may not be able to deduct the interest paid from their taxes. Of course if the borrower has any sense they'll want to get their own lawyer to review the terms of the agreement, and to tell them whether they can deduct it from taxes or not.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6c3d4c6665da2f9ba58598c819e7094d",
"text": "I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f92ce53db50ec532e8395af9da6f0bb",
"text": "I think you are running into multiple problems here: All these together look like a high risk to a bank, especially right now with companies being reluctant to hire full-time employees. Looking at it from their perspective, the last thing they need right now is another potential foreclosure on their books. BTW, if it is a consolation, I had to prove 2 years of continuous employment (used to be a freelancer) before the local credit union would consider giving me a mortgage. We missed out on a couple of good deals because of that, too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "779300a60e57ff333c291551940b1bbd",
"text": "\"Please clarify your question. What do you mean by \"\"..loan in Greece\"\"? If you are referring to taking a mortgage loan to purchase residential property in Greece, there are two factors to consider: If the loan originates from a Greek bank, then odds are likely that the bank will be nationalized by the government if Greece defaults. If the loan is external (i.e. from J.P. Morgan or some foreign bank), then the default will certainly affect any bank that trades/maintains Euros, but banks that are registered outside of Greece won't be nationalized. So what does nationalizing mean for your loan? You will still be expected to pay it according to the terms of the contract. I'd recommend against an adjustable rate contract since rates will certainly rise in a default situation. As for property, that's a different story. There have been reports of violence in Greece already, and if the country defaults, imposes austerity measures, etc, odds are there will be more violence that can harm your property. Furthermore, there is a remote possibility that the government can attempt to acquire your private property. Unlikely, but possible. You could sue in this scenario on property rights violations but things will be very messy from that point on. If Greece doesn't default but just exits the Euro Zone, the situation will be similar. The Drachma will be weak and confidence will be poor, and unrest is a likely outcome. These are not statements of facts but rather my opinion, because I cannot peek into the future. Nonetheless, I would advise against taking a mortgage for property in Greece at this point in time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba18ba31775842e53398358765bef09d",
"text": "Construction loans have an entirely set of rules and factors than mortgages and that's hard to reconcile into one instrument. Also, I'm guessing the bank would be a bit shy about giving a commitment to a home loan before they have any information about how the construction process is going. There would have to be a ton of contingencies put into mortgage and they probably can't account for everything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e2e2ad27dfc78b189d96ccbc1f54039",
"text": "You will not be able to. Here is why you don't have the collateral. You have a car that is probably not worth 10k. Also you probably do not have a simple interest loan. You have to look at your contract. Make sure that there is not early payment fee. Also look for the rule of 78's Explanation of Rule of 78's I can't sugarcoat this chances are you were ripped off because you had bad credit putting you into an even deeper hole.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86ef9962360668eba7a9c6caf07a7265",
"text": "Generally speaking, no they won't. In this case, though I haven't done it myself, I was recommended to put the mortgage on the real estate after it's been leased out and has a contract on it. Then, yes, they will use it for that. But, ex-ante don't expect any bank to count on income from it because, at that point, there's zero guarantee you'll get it leased, and even if you do, at what rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d99d9f07d98a490df01d95a11efb58aa",
"text": "\"Your assumption is wrong. Land is definitely mortgageable. On the other hand, it may be simpler and attract a lower interest rate if you just mortgage your existing house. (I believe most companies call this \"\"remortgaging\"\" even if you have no existing mortgage). Any loan will be subject to proof that you'll be able to pay it off, like any other mortgage. If the land itself is mortgaged you would need a deposit (i.e. the value of the mortgage would need to be less than the value of the land).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73deb8ce59c254ab3f7158df06349e47",
"text": "\"Not unless you have something else to put up as collateral. The bank wants a basic assurance that you're not going to immediately move the money to the Caymans and disappear. 999 times out of 1000, the collateral for a home mortgage is the home itself (which you wouldn't be able to take with you if you decided to disappear), so signing up for a 30 year mortgage on a nonexistent house is probably going to get you laughed out of the bank. It's sometimes possible to negotiate something else as collateral; you may, for instance, have a portfolio of securities worth the loan principal, that you can put in escrow for the term of the loan (the securities will stay in your name and make you money, but if you default on the loan the bank goes to the escrow company and takes the portfolio for their own). The bank will consider the risk of value loss on the securities in the portfolio, and may ask for a higher collateral value or only allow a lower loan amount. In all cases, it's usually a bad idea to go into long-term personal debt just to get \"\"cheap money\"\" that you can use to beat the interest rate with some business plan or investment. If you have a business plan, take that to the bank with an LLC and ask for a business loan. The business itself, if the plan is sound, should become valuable, and the terms of business loans take that into account, allowing for a \"\"shrinking collateral\"\" transferring the initial personal risk of the loan to the business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adeb62f3873388115cae70ccf26f77c7",
"text": "Used car dealers will sometimes deliberately issue high-interest-rate subprime loans to folks who have poor credit. But taking that kind of risk on a mortgage, when you aren't also taking profit out of the sale, really isn't of interest to anyone who cares about making a profit. There might be a nonprofit our there which does so, but I don't know of one. Fix your credit before trying to borrow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ad0a10b997fe694ff570c21f460ebae",
"text": "Typically the least formal agreement for any type of lending is a Promisory Note (of which you can find plenty across the web, although I'd suggest picking up a Nolo book from the library and using their templates -- I think the book holding your type of form would be the Personal Legal forms Book). Still, $10k is a very large amount of money to lend to a friend and he probably is better off going to a bank and asking for an unsecured line of credit (not a credit card, but rather a general loan) and doing the money that way because typically that amount of money is small to the bank and they will already have the licenses/assets in place to handle collateral and such (which can be very tricky to do on your own).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6ad881959a40ac8ec659db1924860be",
"text": "You're never going to get really low interest for an unsecured loan (i.e. without collateral), but if your credit score is excellent, then most banks should give you a decent rate for a personal line of credit. You could inquire at several banks to compare offers. Here in Germany there are also websites that will do such a comparison for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72c6294a241bea25d2691f469ed674e1",
"text": "What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001ad7f8030aa55b992aab75c2bd3b7d",
"text": "This is one way in which the scheme could work: You put your own property (home, car, piece of land) as a collateral and get a loan from a bank. You can also try to use the purchased property as security, but it may be difficult to get 100% loan-to-value. You use the money to buy a property that you expect will rise in value and/or provide rent income that is larger than the mortgage payment. Doing some renovations can help the value rise. You sell the property, pay back the loan and get the profits. If you are fast, you might be able to do this even before the first mortgage payment is due. So yeah, $0 of your own cash invested. But if the property doesn't rise in value, you may end up losing the collateral.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e6b3c3d49316238ac8a589d1dd171d9",
"text": "\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \"\"investment\"\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd40fec317928dc6104dc709adb7b007",
"text": "On $4K/mo gross about $1000/mo can go to the mortgage, and at today's rates, that's about $200K of mortgage the bank might lend you. Income is qualified based on gross, not net, so if $48,000/yr is wrong, please scale my guesstimate down a bit. In the end, today's rates allow a mortgage of nearly 4X one's gross income. This is too high, in my opinion. I'm answering what the bank would approve you at, not what I think is wise. Wise, in my opinion is 2.5-3X one's income, tops.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
72f5d1c66a60ec53708db061708ff3fa
|
Why do employer contributions count against HSA limits?
|
[
{
"docid": "2513f1831e9f296ea3b69df68705a24c",
"text": "am I comparing apples and oranges? Yes - different purposes, different laws, different regulations. One rationale could be that HSA benefits are immediate while retirement benefits are deferred, so the benefit of employer contributions are not felt until retirement and thus do not need as stringent a limit, but that's a complete guess.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d4aa8a2800bd56b402ed764de9dcc06",
"text": "\"It's going to be quite a challenge to give a definitive answer to any \"\"Why\"\" question about law, and especially so for a question about tax law. One would need to try to dig up statements made by the legislators (and/or their aides) crafting and debating the law. As it is, tax law is already inconsistent in many ways. (Why are there people who can't contribute to a Roth IRA directly but can contribute to a Traditional and then immediately convert it to Roth? Why are maximum limits for 401(k) plans and IRAs separate rather than being one combined \"\"retirement\"\" savings maximum?) In the absence of some specific legislative statements saying that it was set up this way for some specific purpose, one must assume that it was written with the some goals as all tax law: As a compromise between various ideas, trying to accomplish some specific purpose. Feel free to add in some level of inefficiency and it being hard to completely understand the entirely of the tax law, which leads to things perhaps not being as \"\"tidy\"\" as one might hope for. But there's no reason to think that the people crafting the tax advantages for HSA plans had any reason to use 401(k) plans as a template, or wanted them to accomplish the same goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97346c784e8fcb99281f68510260ad97",
"text": "\"Just like all employee benefits there is a focus on removing or limiting owners of businesses' ability to abuse tax preferences under the guise of an employee benefit. As you point out there is an overall plan maximum 401(k) for employer contributions and match contributions. There is a nondiscrimination test for FSA programs (there is also a nondiscrimination test for medical plans under sections 125 and 105(h)). Employer contributions are counted toward the total of HSA contributions. Why an HSA has a different maximum arrangement than 401(k) is anyone's guess. But the purpose of the limit is to prevent owners of companies from setting up plans that do little more than funnel tax free funds to themselves. An owner/employee could pay themselves a wage, contribute the maximum, then have the \"\"employer\"\" also match the maximum, so there are limits in place.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "716f67aedf7530387cb17b6994425dca",
"text": "Yes you are eligible even if your spouse is enrolled in Medicare. As long as YOU are not enrolled in Medicare you can contribute to an HSA. You may use the money to pay the cost of qualified medical expenses for you and your spouse. Here are some resources with additional information: HSA FAQ's HSA Resources",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7026d55b4b8a8396cfa0fd0da9f9780",
"text": "If there were no contribution limits, you could shelter practically all of your income from income tax. The government would not have sufficient tax revenue. Hence, there are limits which ensure some personal income remains taxable today. Similarly, when you retire, there are rules for minimum required distributions (withdrawals) which ensure the government gets to tax some of your income each year in your retirement, depending on the account type. One other advantage of limits is to encourage people to approach saving for retirement using regular, ongoing contributions made in the context of each year's limit. The limit, in a sense, can be a form of guidance. Some aim to contribute to the limit, and some even save beyond it using plain taxable investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "167747398d356f0b9a3ed4ff63181465",
"text": "\"This is a great question! The IRS is not 100% clear on this. IRS publications do however very strongly suggest that assuming your wife has a plan providing family coverage, you can contribute up to your family maximum. If she does NOT have a family coverage plan then the answer is definitively no, you may only contribute the individual limit. Note if you have children covered by her plan then she is considered to have \"\"family coverage\"\" even if you are not covered by her plan (see here, question 12). From the 2012 IRS publication, bottom of Page 4. For 2012, if you have self-only HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $3,100. If you have family HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $6,250. This is presumably the referencing the definition which is introduced and discussed for married couples on Page 6: Rules for married people. If either spouse has family HDHP coverage, both spouses are treated as having family HDHP coverage. If each spouse has family coverage under a separate plan, the contribution limit for 2012 is $6,250. You must reduce the limit on contributions, before taking into account any additional contributions, by the amount contributed to both spouse's Archer MSAs. After that reduction, the contribution limit is split equally between the spouses unless you agree on a different division. Example. For 2012, Mr. Auburn and his wife are both eligible individuals. They each have family coverage under separate HDHPs. Mr. Auburn is 58 years old and Mrs. Auburn is 53. Mr. and Mrs. Auburn can split the family contribution limit ($6,250) equally or they can agree on a different division. If they split it equally, Mr. Auburn can contribute $4,125 to an HSA (one-half the maximum contribution for family coverage ($3,125) + $1,000 additional contribution) and Mrs. Auburn can contribute $3,125 to an HSA. The last example is nearly the exact situation you are in assuming your wife's plan is family coverage. The only assumption beyond what is explicitly written you need to make is that you are considered to have family coverage in the example as per the \"\"Rules for married people\"\" section, even though your plan only is a single-coverage plan. This conclusion seems to logically follow from information in the FAQs here (see Q32), as well as this document. Neither the above example nor any IRS documents referenced in this answer cover your situation completely.\"",
"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": "52fa6334a9bac8de7c2dcf1d70f5f971",
"text": "\"Because 401k's are also used by self employed. A person who has a schedule C profitable income can open a 401k and \"\"match\"\" in whatever ratio he wants, up to 25% of the net profits or the limits you stated. This allows self-employed to defer more income taxes to the future. Why only self-employed? Good question. Ask your congressman. My explanation would be that since they're self-employed they're in much more danger of not having income, especially later in life, if their business go south. Thus they need a bigger cushion than an average W2 employee who can just find another job.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae6624165f7fd30a880665a79b3ea4e5",
"text": "I have worked for companies that have done this. One did have a match and the other did not. When they figured their profit at the end of the year a portion was given to the employees as a 401K deposit. retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits Total annual contributions (annual additions) to all of your accounts in plans maintained by one employer (and any related employer) are limited. The limit applies to the total of: elective deferrals employer matching contributions employer nonelective contributions allocations of forfeitures The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $54,000 ($60,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2017; $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2016. So as long as everything stays below that $54,000 limit you are good. In one case the decision was made by the company for the employee, the other company gave us the option of bonus check or 401K. I heard that most of the employees wanted the money in the 401K.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cd19505fc03958819b59d75db658016",
"text": "One aspect that may not be obvious - if you contribute to an HSA through payroll deduction, it comes out before the Social Security (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%) taxes. Since a payroll contribution reduces your taxes by 7.65%, it's generally the better option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d34007d3ff18343f2d2a187102c0548",
"text": "\"A few thoughts: You said, To me it makes sense that if he accidentally put his own money in when he wasn't supposed to, he could just take it out and pay the tax on it and be fine. In this case, he would be putting his own after-tax money in, and wouldn't be able to deduct it, so the act of putting it in and taking it back out in the same tax year would be as if the transaction never occurred at all. He would not have to \"\"pay the tax on it\"\". As for this question: Is there any penalty to his employer if they contribute to an HSA on his behalf, knowing that he is not eligible, and that the money will be an excess contribution? It's good that your son is prepared to treat it as regular income and pay the appropriate taxes. However, the employer should be the one doing that. They should be treating it as regular income and taking out FICA and paying their end of FICA too. If they aren't doing that, technically they are breaking the law. The employer really shouldn't be making the contributions at all, and if they ever bothered to correct this, this article suggests that the employer may be legally allowed to drain the HSA account and take their money back out of it, but only for the same tax year. Apparently they can do this without your son's consent. If that's true, it may make sense to withdraw all money from that account immediately as soon as the money arrives, since they cannot take the money back if it is no longer there. Once the money leaves the HSA account the employer has no choice but to change it to income and if they don't, your son must declare it as such (which it sounds like he is prepared to do). This doesn't really answer your question of whether or not the employer can be penalized- I would assume yes, but not too badly. The worst case scenario for them would probably be just having to pay all the back FICA on those funds if they aren't doing so already. Maybe an interest penalty as well. All that being said, I'd recommend talking to an accountant. The most important thing you want to be sure of is that your son cannot possibly be liable for any wrongdoing. Particularly I would get confirmation on pulling money out of the HSA that you know shouldn't be there in the first place, just to make sure there is no possible way to get dinged for that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "597775cd26c6519787a8dcf2492dd0ec",
"text": "If you mistakenly pull money out of the HSA all the ones I have looked at have a mechanism of returning the funds. Sometimes they have a form, other times the doctor or pharmacy can put the money back in. Money put back into the fund doesn't count as a contribution for that year. You shouldn't have to pull money out that you know will just be reimbursed. But there are occasions where there is no other way. Sometimes you are not sure what the exact fee will be when visiting the doctor. In other cases you have a rebate that will only be received weeks later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89c79267825f4b73a1ce668d674e5ba3",
"text": "A medical expense is only a qualified medical expense eligible for an HSA distribution if it is not reimbursed by insurance. If you know that you will be reimbursed, do not pay for it through your HSA. Think of it this way: you can only be reimbursed for a medical expense once. Either you get reimbursed by your insurance, or you get reimbursed by your HSA, but not both. If you pay for the expense with your HSA and are later reimbursed, you need to return the money to your HSA through a mistaken distribution repayment. This is not considered a contribution, but you need to make sure to tell your HSA provider that it is a mistaken distribution repayment and not a contribution, so that it gets accounted for correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75a17c9873c8af651c812c8a390fda9c",
"text": "There is no limit on the output maximum in one year. The strength of the HSA is that if you don't spend all the money in the account, it rolls over to the next year. The benefit is that if a few years down the road you get a huge medical bill you are protected because you can pull it out of the HSA. The goal for me was to build up the account to a level that even if I had to may the maximum out of pocket for my insurance policy the money game from previous years deposits and current year deposits. Even you ever have the situation where the employer doesn't offer a high deductible plan the money for co-payments and medicines can still be pulled from the pre-existing HSA. If the government did limit you to withdraws not exceeding current year deposits the roll over feature would be worthless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d2b45c67ea6e9995d69ebdd9e3bd65e",
"text": "Some of the deductions that are only available as payroll deductions are: There are other deductions you can take if you qualify such as HSA or IRA contributions without any employer help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efd610253ac92ccec4c68d7e254a7182",
"text": "\"I have a couple other important considerations regarding external HSA accounts vs employer sponsored HSA accounts. Depending on your personal financial situation and goals; some people like to use HSA accounts as an extra retirement account (since the money can be withdrawn penalty free in retirement for non-medical expenses, and completely tax & penalty free at any time for medical expenses). If your intended use for the HSA account is an investment vehicle for retirement, then you may find more use/benefit out of an external provider that may provide more or better investment options than your employers HSA investment options. There can be a lot of additional value in those extra investment options over greater periods of time. Another VERY important consideration for FICA taxes (FICA includes Social Security & Medicare) that I don't believe was mentioned before - for those earners who are under the maximum social security wage limit, you are paying 6.2% of each paycheck into social security taxes. As others have mentioned you can \"\"save\"\" this tax through your employer’s plan if you set up the account to be funded pre-tax from your paychecks. However, in doing so, you are lowering your overall contributions into social security, which may lower your social security benefits in your retirement years! If this is ultimately going to lower your SSA benefits in retirement then that is a big future cost that may steer you against the pre-tax employer contributions. Think of social security as part of your retirement plan, not as a tax but instead as an additional check you put away for yourself for retirement every month. Of course, this is only an important consideration if SSA is still going to be around when you retire, but let's assume that it will be. This is not an issue for higher earners, earning well above the max SSA taxable wages. There is no wage limit on the 1.45% Medicare tax withholding's, and there is certainly no harm in saving Medicare taxes because it will not affect future Medicare benefits. So for taxpayers earning well over the max SSA wages, they will just save the 1.45% Medicare taxes without affecting their SSA contributions and resulting retirement benefits. So again, it all comes down to personal situations. Depending on your earnings and goals, employer plan may or may not be the way to go. Personally, for my lower earning clients, friends and family, I tend to recommend that they do whatever they can to maximize their social security benefits in retirement. So I would advise them to either use the external provider account, or the employer plan but with post-tax contributions so you don't lower the SSA withholding's but can still claim the income tax deduction on your tax return. YMMV -Dan\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c82501a5c673b08b9acdd4929544147",
"text": "As others have pointed out in comments and answers, the 6 withdrawal limit was based on Regulation D. Banks/credit unions that offer checking-account based HSAs do exist, with no limit on the number of withdrawals (at least according to information given to me over the phone -- I didn't check the disclosure brochures). Concrete examples (I can't vouch for any of these, just found them in my research):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0396009d0760b616517ada78e0e8343",
"text": "\"To answer your first two questions: according to IRS pub 696 \"\"Contributions to an HSA\"\" section: Rollovers A rollover contribution is not included in your income, is not deductible, and does not reduce your contribution limit. Archer MSAs and other HSAs. You can roll over amounts from Archer MSAs and other HSAs into an HSA. You do not have to be an eligible individual to make a rollover contribution from your existing HSA to a new HSA. Rollover contributions do not need to be in cash. Rollovers are not subject to the annual contribution limits. You must roll over the amount within 60 days after the date of receipt. You can make only one rollover contribution to an HSA during a 1-year period. Note. If you instruct the trustee of your HSA to transfer funds directly to the trustee of another HSA, the transfer is not considered a rollover. There is no limit on the number of these transfers. Do not include the amount transferred in income, deduct it as a contribution, or include it as a distribution on Form 8889, line 14a. (italics mine) So if you transfer the money yourself, you can only do it once per year, but there are no limits to when or how many times you can instruct the old HSA trustee to transfer funds directly to the new trustee.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c499fb8b0df6562bea921ff0f5555fc4
|
Why should we expect stocks to go up in the long term?
|
[
{
"docid": "02498fdcc586a581a7ed57d87363fa78",
"text": "Does it make sense for stocks to earn a premium indefinitely? Yes. There is good reason to think that the stock market will make money indefinitely: the stock market is the primary mechanism through which investors bear market risk, which requires compensation. If you think of all the owners of firms (stockholders and bondholders, generally) the risk premium that stocks earn stocks is the way bondholders pay equityholders to bear the risk that they do not wish to. Will stock prices always go up in the long run? As long as companies pay out less in dividends than their profit, prices will go up. That could change if we were to change our corporate culture and/or tax practices so that firms paid out more in dividends. However, for the purposes of your question, I think it doesn't matter much whether the investor makes money as dividends or capital gains. Does the 5-7% guess apply only to the US market? I didn't write (nor read) the books in question, but most likely that is a global number. The US dominates the global equity market, so it's often a good proxy. However, international returns taken together have no less risk and earn no less over long horizons in general. The particular examples you have pointed out are special cases that only apply to a part of the global economy and a particular time period. There are plenty of examples of stock markets and time periods that did much better than the US market to offset your examples. Is 5-7% a reasonable long-term estimate of equity returns? Equity will always earn more in expectation than risk-free securities will. How much more depends on major economic factors. 5-7% has been a good estimate for the market risk premium for many, many decades (stocks should earn this plus whatever the risk-free rate is). However, that is just an empirical observation, not a rule. It can change. Some day technological progress could slow down or stop, we could run out of important resources in a way that we can't compensate for, our population permanently could stop growing, aliens could invade, etc. Down the road it is certainly possible for expected equity returns to go down and never go back up again. This would result from a permanent, global, economic shift that I think would be pretty obvious. That is, you wouldn't have to look at stock prices to know it was happening.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19b77118c82ee59413679b2e08b53b94",
"text": "I have read in many personal finance books that stocks are a great investment for the long term, because on average they go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index, but is there reason to believe this trend will continue indefinitely into the future? It has also been wrong for 20+ year time periods during those last 100 years. It's an average, and you can live your whole career at a loss. There are many things to support the retention of the average, over the next 100 years. I think the quip is out of scope of your actual investment philosophy. But basically there are many ways to lower your cost basis, by reinvesting dividends, selling options, or contributing to your position at any price from a portion of your income, and by inflation, and by the growth of the world economy. With a low enough cost basis then a smaller percentage gain in the index gives you a magnified profit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a39e508126cf4dbdb4d2f1ff5c3bfeb",
"text": "I feel something needs to be addressed The last 100 years have been a period of economic prosperity for the US, so it's no surprise that stocks have done so well, but is economic prosperity required for such stock growth? Two world wars. The Great Depression. The dotcom bust. The telecom bust. The cold war. Vietnam, Korea. OPEC's oil cartel. The Savings and Loans crisis. Stagflation. The Great Recession. I could go on. While I don't fully endorse this view, I find it convincing: If the USA has managed 7% growth through all those disasters, is it really preposterous to think it may continue?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4048f622462175257b20a025cffe2227",
"text": "The total value of the stock market more or less tracks the total value of the companies listed in the stock market, which is more or less the total value of the US economy (since very few industries are nationalized or dominated by privately held companies). The US economy has consistently grown over time, thanks to the wonders of industrialization, the discovery of new markets, new natural resources, etc. Thus, the stock market has continued to grow as well. Will it forever? No. The United States will not exist for ever. But there's no obvious reason it won't continue to grow, at least for a while, though of course if I could accurately predict that I would be far richer than I am. Why do other countries not have the same result? China is its own ball of wax since it's a sort-of-market-sort-of-command economy. Japan has major issues economically right now and doesn't really have the natural or people resources; it also had a huge market bubble a while back that it's never recovered from. And many European countries are doing fine. German's DAX30 index was at around 2500 in 2004 and is now at nearly 13000. That's pretty fast growth. If you go back further (there was a crash ending in around 2004), you can see around the fall of the Berlin wall it was still around 2000; even going that far back, that's about an 8% annual bump. The FTSE was also around 2000 back then, around 8000 now, which is around 5% annual growth. Many of these indexes were more seriously hurt than the US markets in the two major crashes of this millenium; while the US markets fell a lot in 2008, they didn't fall nearly as much as many smaller markets in 2002, so had less to recover from. Both DAX and FTSE suffered similar falls in 2002 to 2008, and so even though during good periods they've grown quite quickly, they haven't overall done as well as they could have given the crashes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5357ae76bad6f93e3cf49890edff622b",
"text": "\"Stocks \"\"go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index....\"\" This was true in the 20th century in America. It was not true (over the whole century) for other major countries like Germany, Russia, Japan, or China. (It was more or less true for Britain and certain Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada.) A lot of this had to do with which countries were occupied (or not) during the two world wars. In one of his company's annual reports, Warren Buffett pointed out that the U.S. standard of living went up 6-7 times in the 20th century, that this was unprecedented (and might not be repeatable in the 21st century). The performance of the U.S. stock market in the past century is representative of those (and other) past facts. If a different set of facts prevails going forward, the U.S. stock market would be reflective of those \"\"different\"\" facts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cd4ebc007e5e4e0e0ffeb192ed4576b",
"text": "Companies are expected to make a profit, otherwise there is no point to their existence and no motivation for investment. That profit comes back to shareholders as growth and/or dividend. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to turn back into investment to facilitate increased future earnings, it increases shareholder equity and share price. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to pay out in dividend, it makes the shares more attractive to investors which pushes the price up. Either way, shares go up. Share prices drop when companies lose money, or there are market disturbances affecting all companies (recessions), or when individual companies fail. Averaged over all companies over the long term (decades), stocks can be reasonably expected to go up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09fa54925fc02fb49d240221891260b0",
"text": "\"The last 300 years of civilization have been amazingly atypical. We have experienced industrial revolution after industrial revolution. Economic revolutions that would have changed the world in 1000 AD show up as noise. Coal, Canal, Rail, Trade, Electricity, Refrigeration, Oil, Gas, Nuclear, Assembly Line, Vacuum Tube, Mass Education, Transistor, Integrated Circuit, Nano-tech, Antibiotics, Slaying of absolute Poverty, Democratic, Feminism, Superhighway, Automobile, Airplane, and on and on and on. A cascade of miracles and world-shaking events that have intertwined and together generated a many century long economic singularity that has upended the entire world and generated today's world. The question you should ask, is tomorrow going to be like today? And the answer is yes; in weather, and in economics, the most likely bet bet is always \"\"things keep on going like they have in the short term\"\". But next week? Next month? That is often not much like today. There is reason to believe that the yield on the above revolutions will continue to propel the economy forward, and that there are multiple promising new revolutions on the horizon. But barring that kind of world-shaking revolution, you are not going to maintain a 5% real return on investment over another centuries for the stock market. The value of investments has to go up by a factor of over 100 in order for that to happen, and the US stock market is already close to 20 trillion dollars. For it to have a market cap of 2 quadrillion dollars the world economy will have to be much larger than it is today. And to be that much larger, the world would have to be a much stranger place that values very different things. We are currently roughly a K-type 0.72 civilization. A simple linear expansion of our power of 100x brings us up to K-type 0.92, which is going to cook the planet from waste heat (not from CO2, but just from the waste heat of the energy it uses!) Efficiency can mitigate this, but only to a degree. 100x more efficient technology is going to less believable than a beanstalk and space colonies. If you believe that the stock market is going to continue to grow at 5%/year for the next century, start investing in really out-there technologies. Gene editing, virtual and augmented reality, space beanstalks and private lift, miraculously cheap energy storage, etc. Because simply refining the technology of today won't get us there. Modern industrial civilization has been a miracle factory. That is what pulled off that growth rate. If the miracles stop coming, so does the growth. There is a road to it. It would involve clean energy, mass personal automation and friendly (not smarter than human) AI, and the entire world lifted up to the standard of living of the top 3% of the USA on average. But it is far from guaranteed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b162c03324b8020cb7acdc8e7c8b3d0f",
"text": "\"Stock returns cannot be evaluated on its own. You need to take into account inflation and the return of other investment vehicles. Over the long run, you want to earn more than your peers (ie inflation), or lose less than them. Stock lets you buy into the profits of a company managed by others. So the fundamental question is \"\"do those company managers make better decision than average person?\"\" Of course there are times when they make awful decisions (eg just before dotcom bubble), and sometimes the best decision is to close the business. But overall those people are much better educated, have higher IQ, more resourceful, etc, and so over long time and across all the companies, this is correct and hence the stock market premium.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac087fe705c43712747a7c55daaad272",
"text": "A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely. Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6d841e056b929642b5c6a6ecd27239fd",
"text": "Should go up because of a company is doing better than the market previously expected it to do, the implication is that it's undervalued at the current price and you buy now you're getting it for less than what it's worth. If Trump was wrong, then the stock would trade up for a bit before ultimately finishing up where it started when the market realises there's nothing in what he said.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca40f9b445156190dec0799d8d34b5f7",
"text": "\"I always liked the answer that in the short term, the market is a voting machine and in the long term the market is a weighing machine. People can \"\"vote\"\" a stock up or down in the short term. In the long term, typically, the intrinsic value of a company will be reflected in the price. It's a rule of thumb, not perfect, but it is generally true. I think it's from an old investing book that talks about \"\"Mr. Market\"\". Maybe it's from one of Warren Buffet's annual letters. Anyone know? :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ce46da861ff836bfd445c2b476746a",
"text": "It is in the interest of private owners, stockholders and boards to ensure long-term viability of companies as well. In the case of stockholders and boards, the current price of the stock has its future earning potential priced into the value of the stock. For example, if Microsoft or Google declared that they were shutting down their big research projects, their stock would tumble. Pharmaceutical and chemical companies also have interest in long term viability. They understand that the projects that they start today will not hit the market for another 10 years. If they go bust, all of that money is wasted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6006d5d44a26b2d1418cbde824c60d6",
"text": "Ok, see that was my thinking too. Historically, stocks and land values have always gone up, even after the depression. So, it seems to me, that if you have a buy and hold strategy with a horizon of 10-20 years, then you should be fine. Is my thinking realistic along those lines?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47693cc23fde88c8eed203721d2aebe5",
"text": "\"I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that \"\"momentum\"\" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is \"\"Cut your losses, and let your winners ride.\"\" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7e580929c80c1a59673b0da603501aa",
"text": "In the short term the market is a popularity contest In the short run which in value investing time can extend even to many years, an equity is subject to the vicissitudes of the whims by every scale of panic and elation. This can be seen by examining the daily chart of any large cap equity in the US. Even such large holdings can be affected by any set of fear and greed in the market and in the subset of traders trading the equity. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience high variance in the short rurn. in the long term [the stock market] is a weighing machine In the long run which in value investing time can extend to even multiple decades, an equity is more or less subject only to the variance of the underlying value. This can be seen by examining the annual chart of even the smallest cap equities over decades. An equity over such time periods is almost exclusively affected by its changes in value. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience low variance in the long run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f750e98ac42cb2c1e3eca83071e59030",
"text": "\"Past results are not a predictor of future results. There is no explicit upper bound on a market, and even if individual companies' values were remaining unchanged one would expect the market to drift upward in the long term. Plus, there's been some shift from managing companies for dividends to managing stocks for growth, which will tend to increase the upward push. Trying to time the market -- to guess when it's going to move in any particular direction -- is usually closer to gambling than investing. The simplest answer remains a combination of buy-and-hold and dollar-cost averaging. Buy at a constant number of dollars per month (or whatever frequency you prefer), and you will automatically buy more when the stock/fund is lower, less when it is higher. That takes advantage of downturns as buying opportunities without missing out on possible gains at the other end. Personally, I add a bit of contrarian buying to that -- I increased my buying another notch or two while the market was depressed, since I had money I wouldn't need any time soon (buy and hold) and I was reasonably confident that enough of the market would come back strongly enough that I wasn't at significant risk of losing the investment. That's one of the things which causes me to be categorized as an \"\"aggressive investor\"\" even though I'm operating with a very vanilla mix of mutual funds and not attempting to micromanage my money. My goal is to have the money work for me, not vice versa.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41226f31165489d28c4c87a28c1c9d2d",
"text": "\"One key to trading is recognizing expectations. What you see in the market is not always a reflection of fundamentals; sometimes, it's a reflection of what people expect to occur, whether that actually happens or not, is debatable. When a currency experiences inflation, such as the CPI being higher today for the USD, it may see an increase because people expect that the central bank will raise rates. Again, this may not be the case, and the traders with this expectation could be wrong. If you're seeing a currency rise after reported inflation, more than likely, traders expect the inflation to benefit the currency in the longer run. Finally on the economics' side, and economists here can debate this, at least in the past the view was that there was a relationship between inflation and unemployment (see the Phillip's Curve). This idea, depending on who you ask, was refuted in the 70s when we had both high inflation and high unemployment (stagflation). Supposedly, if we have high unemployment, we should have low inflation, so we can always raise inflation to have low unemployment. Note that you will still find some economists who think the Phillip's Curve is true, so \"\"refuted\"\" depends on who you ask. From what I've read, Austrian economists are the only economists who see inflation as always bad (long story short, I think it's Paul Cwik who argues that deflation is actually good); like you're seeing, other economists might see it as a good sign and it's only a concern when it's very high (hyperinflation).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bcb59a669749520116928bbb4a071bc",
"text": "Because growth and earnings are going down exponentially for this company? It will eventually go up (like 3 years+), but if you want to feel more pain first, go ahead. Look at the macroeconomic picture before you praise all mighty of an individual company",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf6022bc93687e36f52a30b212aea8d4",
"text": "I think it's safe to say that Apple cannot grow in value in the next 20 years as fast as it did in the prior 20. It rose 100 fold to a current 730B valuation. 73 trillion dollars is nearly half the value of all wealth in the world. Unfortunately, for every Apple, there are dozens of small companies that don't survive. Long term it appears the smaller cap stocks should beat large ones over the very long term if only for the fact that large companies can't maintain that level of growth indefinitely. A non-tech example - Coke has a 174B market cap with 46B in annual sales. A small beverage company can have $10M in sales, and grow those sales 20-25%/year for 2 decades before hitting even $1B in sales. When you have zero percent of the pie, it's possible to grow your business at a fast pace those first years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6380de041b63f6e0f06ab562a47f233",
"text": "Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06dc44ec6dd66aab8e5af5fb3f406ed7",
"text": "There's a case to be made that companies below a certain market cap have more potential than the higher ones. Consider, Apple cannot grow 100 fold from its current value. At $700B or so in value, that would be a $70T goal, just about the value of all the combined wealth in the entire US. At some point, the laws of large numbers take over, and exponential growth starts to flatten out. On the flip side, Apple may have as good or better chance to rise 10% over the next 6-12 months as a random small cap stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "556804e8b9ad652c9c7f033736e30826",
"text": "\"Um no. Easy google. \"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\" >This is how it works with stocks; supply is the amount of shares that people want to sell, and demand is the amount of shares that people want to purchase. If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. So sure, if a company is performing well, people will want to buy the stock. Causing it to go up. But even if a company was performing well and no one wanted to buy the stock. There would be only sellers and the price would go down.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67723070523d2d8a176e4ac196dd689f",
"text": "Yes for sure. It would be redundant. I have three of them, so what. Its just more money in retirement. I would prefer a ROTH IRA in your tax bracket and you next employer may not offer that. And yes there are tax breaks either putting money in to a IRA or if you go the Roth route, on the way out. So if you put money in a Roth now you will have some money at your tax rate in 40 years from now. And if you put money in a traditional IRA when you are an employee you will save on the tax rate you are at then. So you are hedging you bets on tax rates by paying them in two different decade. Personally we are probably all on a tax holiday right now and I would be that taxes will be higher in the future as they are historically pretty low right now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fca73e29b05038112a00f43c8a4f49ef",
"text": "You are right: if the combined value of all outstanding GOOG shares was $495B, and the combined value of all GOOGL shares was $495B, then yes, Alphabet would have a market cap of at least $990B (where I say at least only because I myself don't know that there aren't other issues that should be in the count as well). The respective values of the total outstanding GOOG and GOOGL shares are significantly less than that at present though. Using numbers I just grabbed for those tickers from Google Finance (of course), they currently stand thus:",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cde5a6b55b0335ad5fb5c2ceea8b41e7
|
2008-2009 Stock Market Crash — what caused the second drop?
|
[
{
"docid": "0191d9168a6a4597066773639037bf12",
"text": "\"The second drop was part of the same event. The short-term resurgence is often called a \"\"dead cat bounce\"\". Mongus Pong's answer is a great answer, I'm going to approach from a more anecdotal POV. Think about the fear that was in the air in Fall 2008. From my recollection, that short-term stabilization came from the Fed, President, Congress, etc standing up and saying that the government would do everything in its power to maintain liquidity in the marketplace. So the fear of a broader collapse of investment banks (beyond Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, etc) due to the Fed behaving as it did in 1929 was abated. By the time you got to Q1 of 2009, it became clear that business vaporized -- nothing was happening. No cars were selling, Christmas was dismal, vacations were cancelled. (example: I went on vacation to a fancy resort in December 2008 and paid $60/night for a $450/night room! The place was half empty.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "666f7758e030bfc5bddf3d8ae3b3d858",
"text": "Ultimately no one really knows what causes the markets to rise and fall beyond supply and demand. If more people want to buy then sell, prices go up. And if more people want to sell, prices go down. The news channels will often try to attribute a specific reason to the price move, but that is largely just guess work to fill up the news pages so people have something to read. You may find it interesting to read up on the Elliot wave principle. The crash of 2008 was a perfect Elliot Wave fit. Elliot Wave theory states that social moods (which ultimately drive the stock market) generally occur in a relatively predictable pattern. The crash in September was a Wave 3 down. This is where the majority of people give up hope. However there are still a few people who are still holding on. The markets tend to meander about during wave 4. Finally the last few people give up hope and sell out. This causes the final crash of wave 5. Only when the last person has given up hope can the markets start to go up again..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a38877baeb397e6c9892d20f6f17f828",
"text": "\"First, I would like to use a better chart. In my opinion, a close of day line chart obscures a lot of important information. Here is a daily OHLC log chart: The initial drop from the 1099.23 close on Oct 3 was to 839.8 intraday, to close at 899.22 on Oct 10. After this the market was still very volatile and reached a low of 747.78 on Nov 20, closing only slightly higher than this. It traded as high as 934.70 on Jan 6, 2009, but the whole period of Nov 24 - Feb 13 was somewhat of a trading range of roughly 800-900. Despite this, the news reports of the time were frequently saying things like \"\"this isn't going to be a V shaped recovery, it is going to be U shaped.\"\" The roughly one week dip you see Feb 27 - Mar 9 taking it to an intraday low of 666.79 (only about 11% below the previous low) on first glance appears to be just a continuation of the previous trend. However... The Mar 10 uptrend started with various news articles (such as this one) which I recall at the time suggested things like reinstating the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 which had been repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Although these attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, the widespread telegraphing of such attempts in the media seemed to have reversed a common notion which I saw widespread on forums and other places that, \"\"we are going to be in this mess forever, the market has nowhere to go but down, and therefore shorting the market is a good idea now.\"\" I don't find the article itself, but one prominent theme was the \"\"up-tick\"\" rule on short selling: source From this viewpoint, then, that the last dip was driven not so much by a recognition that the economy was really in the toilet (as this really was discounted in the first drop and at least by late November had already been figured into the price). Instead, it was sort of the opposite of a market top, where now you started seeing individual investors jump on the band-wagon and decide that now was the time for a foray into selling (short). The fact that the up-tick rule was likely to be re-instated had a noticeable effect on halting the final slide.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2c4a6165ef1f2a21b51bb5577e609515",
"text": "I would say the real story is less about the implications of low vol but rather what has caused it. IMO that would be: 1) lots of money chasing a handful of investments a) loose monetary policy b) wealth effects from fantastic returns since the GR c) consolidation in various sectors (health, energy, tech) 2) rise of low cost index funds (all inflow go into the large swathes of the market so volatility across stocks is dampened) 3) various externalities of expansionary Fed policy a) resulting low bond yields lead to larger flows into equities b) low cost of debt feeding buybacks c) it has been sustained for so long it has had stabilizing effect i.e. predictability is good for markets and business decision making These factors make for an interesting story because what happens when some component of this system begins to show cracks? What happens when this low vol feedback loop ceases? Nobody knows. But it will not continue ad infinitum. Not all doom and gloom but it won't be the market we are used to today.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adc75bf53b97b75a3085e35ceb845c0a",
"text": "The real folly is in believing that somehow 'regulators' are going to be able to prevent crashes, or even if this is desirable. Usually the idea that regulators can prevent crashes relies on regulators being issued a retroactive time machine. Crashes. Happen. If regulators had more power and more authority prior to 2008, the housing market crash would have been worse and more severe than it actually was, because regulators were like everyone else - they believed house prices would never go down, and were focussing their efforts on regulating banks to lend *more* money to *riskier* borrowers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8345935b79ce87ab4b5c0bbc8cae7ac4",
"text": "If you're willing to entertain the fact that a lack of any action by the fed would have killed market confidence and caused equities to tank, gold could have been a suitable asset in a flight to quality. Of course as others have said the drop would just be the uncertainty about QE3 being removed from the price",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af89fe14e34eb8e5c2a27ab13b14984",
"text": "From mid 2007 to early 2009 the DJI went down about 50 %. This market setback won't happen on a single day or even a few weeks. Emergency funds should be in cash only. Markets could be closed for an unknown period of time. Markets where closed September 11 until September 17 in 2001.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dec6527bd0a515914b6241198a5034c",
"text": "\"When people (even people in the media) say: \"\"The stock market is up because of X\"\" or \"\"The stock market is down because of Y\"\", they are often engaging in what Nicolas Taleb calls the narrative falacy. They see the market has moved in one direction or another, they open their newspaper, pick a headline that provides a plausible reason for the market to move, and say: \"\"Oh, that is why the stock market is down\"\". Very rarely do statements like this actually come from research, asking people why they bought or sold that day. Sometimes they may be right, but it is usually just story telling. In terms of old fashioned logic this is called the \"\"post hoc, ergo proper hoc\"\" fallacy. Now all the points people have raised about the US deficit may be valid, and there are plenty of reasons for worrying about the future of the world economy, but they were all known before the S&P report, which didn't really provide the markets with much new information. Note also that the actual bond market didn't move much after hearing the same report, in fact the price of 10 year US Treasury bonds actually rose a tiny bit. Take these simple statements about what makes the market go up or down on any given day with several fistfuls of salt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54d4cc658c43e2133eeb5e352326f227",
"text": "\"Written by Alastair Williamson. Notable author of articles such as \"\"The Whole Damn System May Collapse Next Year\"\", \"\"Major Crisis of Cuture And Economy Coming Soon\"\", \"\"Horrendous Storm to Hit Stocks\"\", \"\"Central Banks Have Failed, Now They Exit, Economic Crash Expected\"\", \"\"DETROIT FORETELLS AMERICA’S FUTURE: IT’S VERY BAD\"\", \"\"THE TRIANGLE OF DEATH IN BALTIMORE: Hundreds of Murders Happen Here\"\" I sense a pattern here. https://squawker.org/author/alistair-williamson/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4cf1f5efd115f13c58c14aad6ff927f",
"text": "Everyone and their grandmother has been expecting QE to taper since May 2013. If the drop is caused by that, then it shouldn't be too serious. Also, can people stop comparing stuff to 2009? 2009 was a unique once-in-a-lifetime circumstance, and not indicative of actual market values.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c56f86c963da218d415cba0fa5b3cab",
"text": "That doesn't change anything. You're still judging an investment off a 5 year period which includes a massive event which destroyed oil stocks. My previous analogy still applies, if you held 2 portfolios, one with tech stocks and one without for the 5 year period that includes the tech crash in the early 2000s, of course the non tech one would outperform the tech one. XLE, an energy etf, dropped 30% at the end of that period. That has an outsized influence on your article there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d0b875c77a4a4201c11cd8add8538d0",
"text": "You're describing a dynamic that may contribute to lower house prices. It doesn't however speak to how those prices got so lofty, so untethered from wages and the broader economy to begin with and why the losses from the fall were amplified so many times over. That's a story you can't tell without working through the systemic fraud.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfb855ce6126884267e79bc7f356b5d7",
"text": "I think that the 2008 events represented a loss of a very large amount of equity for Americas, also it had a ripple effect around the world on other countries. Now - almost as if they wanted it to happen again, the Obama Administration's trade policy and big EU banks are pushing to use the [global TISA trade in services trade deal](http://corporateeurope.org/blog/342-civil-society-groups-oppose-deregulation-and-privatisation-proposed-services-agreement-tisa) to quietly irreversibly deregulate a huge number of areas whch will effect hundreds of millions of people, including the banking industry- deregulate global banks, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. Deregulation is what caused the 2008 crisis- http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "140c880b96c13bbfc7a40ea088de70d7",
"text": "\"Because more people bought it than sold it. That's really all one can say. You look for news stories related to the event, but you don't really know that's what drove people to buy or sell. We're still trying to figure out the cause of the recent flash crash, for example. For the most part, I feel journalism trying to describe why the markets moved is destined to fail. It's very complicated. Stocks can fall on above average earnings reports, and rise on dismal annual reports. I've heard a suggestion before that people \"\"buy on the rumor, sell on the news\"\". Which is just this side of insider trading.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84a6fe319b0256739a5c0bb2dcbb7f55",
"text": "I don't trust his analysis. Further, any composite measure that includes a Black Swan year is *at least potentially* misleading. 2009 was a once in multigenerations event unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. Since Shiller uses a 10 year historical running average it includes 2009 and is therefore, IMO, unreliable. Making 2009 look even more like an aberration is that the hole had been filled and then some in under 4 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96c93b94d8f9b5a8902c55d0f7405beb",
"text": "I hate attributing an event like this to a single cause. That implies that the market is an orderly system where everything operates smoothly. I prefer to see it as much chaotic. When I see a drop like that happen, I'd say that there were a lot of sellers of stocks and all the buyers were bidding less and less for those few minutes. Perhaps the catalyst for that was a typo or a strange order. But in the end all the participants in the market responded by bidding down stocks, not just one person. It takes sides to complete a trade. I know my model is a bit simplistic... I'd be happy if someone corrected me :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a175e4fa85bf6e475adb34ee6a85d28",
"text": "It is very simple. You bought the house when prices were near their peak in 2008. Housing prices have dropped considerably since then which was the main cause of the mortgage debacle because people had houses that were worth less than their mortgages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6487631b2b4ffbb9cc99b1d1f0e34565",
"text": "It will be most interesting to see what happens as Oil starts to get traded more in more in other currencies. In the controlled demolition that was the WTC, you could see the disbelief in peoples faces as the top started to topple and the first few floors pancaked, then the fear as they realized the whole thing was coming down and they started to run. Feels the same, a controlled demolition, 9.8 m/s^2 all the way down. Free fall",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f924b3bee805c4529399b76d5b18ffe2
|
Accounting equation: does income really decrease equity?
|
[
{
"docid": "f5ee0695964953917759f76fb3faf967",
"text": "\"If your income stream goes up, it would usually increase both your \"\"income\"\" term and your \"\"assets\"\" term since that money sits in your bank account as an asset. (Even more likely a combination of assets and expenses go up if you have cost associated with the increase in income.) In this case, they balance in the equation and your equity doesn't change. The question as you posed it is true mathematically, but the \"\"paradox\"\" happens because you're not taking into account where the money form the increased income falls in other terms of the equation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6acbd800032ff4c58c231b53a69496b",
"text": "\"Equity is the term to make things balance. In a simple transaction, you get $100 paid to you. Income goes up by $100 and the asset of whatever bank account or petty cash drawer you put it into also goes up by $100. Equity is unchanged. If for some reason you had to take some income into your books, but no asset increased, no debt decreased, and you had no way to take an offsetting expense into your books, then this would lower your equity. How else to explain having \"\"earned\"\" $100 but having nothing to show for it?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7487e4e9f05ef9095d429fe366d9cc5",
"text": "The accounting equation, in short, is: This can be further broken down into: Which can be further broken down into: The GnuCash equation is right, though I would substitute the word equity in that equation with a more-specific paid-in capital. Equity is (simply put) made up of 2 parts: shareholders' equity and retained earnings. Shareholders' equity is the amount invested by shareholders. Retained earnings is the amount earned by the business on behalf of the shareholders. Retained earnings is directly affected by your net income (which is income minus expenses). An increase in income will result in an increase in retained earnings. This must be balanced somewhere. Usually an increase in an asset. It may also be balanced by a decrease in equity. Likewise, increase in expenses will result in a decrease in retained earnings, which must also be balanced.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c197ad441c09d2f3cfd1b2b06df90281",
"text": "I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb6523e22504bb769d3d28f4eef746a",
"text": "It took me a while to understand the concept, so I'll break it down as best as I can. There are three parts to the accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity We'll look at this in two ways 1. As a business owner you invest (say) 10,000 USD into your bank. The entry would be: Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Contributions for 10,000 In this case, you have assets of 10,000 from your deposit, but it is due to owner contributions and not business transactions. Another example (say a sale): Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Sales for 10,000 Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Liabilities: Deposits for 10,000 Deposits are a banking term to reflect a bank's obligation to return the amount on demand (though the bank has free reign with it, see fractional banking) You will NEVER debit or credit your bank as it is assumed you will be storing your money there, note bank reconciliation. Hope this helps, comment with any more questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "973cb5be67f212b096e1480696eac5df",
"text": "Fuck managerial accounting to death. Anywho, I'm not sure what they mean by the variance being higher or lower in the budget. Variance in principle is the discrepancy from a budget and actual. I'll try to answer this from what I can see. The budget variance in this problem is unfavorable for Busy Community Support, mostly caused by a significant underestimating of your salaries expense in the budget.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c67f9190edaa707f619795e271b101db",
"text": "It doesn't change anything whatsoever about the underlying company. I had a discussion like this during a case study in my Financial Statement Analysis class. It was a discussion about revenue recognition from the sales of iPhones, and whether it would be better for Apple if the regulation was changed to allow immediate recognition rather than deferring the income. My argument is that it didn't matter one bit, because nothing is changing about how the company is actually run. Cash flow in and out of the company doesn't change. Maybe the accountants will have to work slightly shorter hours or something, but that's negligible. The Accounting majors largely disagreed with me, while the Finance majors largely agreed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24edd62c7ed2bda08884eda0e9dcf42b",
"text": "\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \"\"recognition\"\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b9bddfbc13053744ab668020e549954",
"text": "Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach: Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash. Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600. If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "388d68c4bbd62a93432eb56c917bba4e",
"text": "The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6a86727ce2c1f10f9574097f583a59e",
"text": "Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "052392f5d66b263d95bf4d5e2838e319",
"text": "\"Equity does not represent production divisions in a company (i.e. chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla does not make sense). In Sole proprietorship, equity represents 1 owner. In Partnership, equity has at least two sub-accounts, namely Partner 1 and Partner 2. In Corporations, equity may have Common Stockholders and Preferred Stockholders, or even different class of shares for insiders and angel investors. As you can see, equity represents who owns the company. It is not what the company does or manufactures. First and foremost, define the boundary of the firm. Are your books titled \"\"The books of the family of Doe\"\", \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe\"\", or \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe & Sons\"\". Ask yourself, who \"\"owns\"\" this family. If you believe that a marriage is perpetual until further notice then it does not make any sense to constantly calculate which parent owns the family more. In partnership, firm profits are attributed to partner's accounts using previously agreed ratio. For example, (60%/40% because Partner 1 is more hard working and valuable to the firm. Does your child own this family? Does he/she have any rights to use the assets, to earn income from the assets, to transfer the assets to others, or to enforce private property rights? If they don't have a part of these rights, they are certainly NOT part of Equity. So what happens to the expenses of children if you follow the \"\"partnership\"\" model? There are two ways. The first way is to attribute the Loss to the parents/family since you do not expect the children to repay. It is an unrecoverable loss written off. The second way is to create a Debtor(Asset) account to aggregate all child expense, then create a separate book called \"\"The books Children 1\"\", and classify the expense in that separate book. I advise using \"\"The family of Doe\"\" as the firm's boundary, and having 1 Equity account to simplify everything. It is ultimately up to you to decide the boundaries.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f313648abe18b604213f4933b8a1916b",
"text": "No. Revenue is the company's gross income. The stock price has no contribution to the company's income. The stock price may be affected when the company's income deviates from what it was expected to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "998c6bb64e219b1c2a9fa3c93102ef7f",
"text": "If you were a business, all your assets would have a dollar value, so when you sold them you'd decrease the amount of assets by that amount and increase in cash, and if there was a profit on the sale it would go in as income, if there was loss it would count as a cost (or a loss)... so if there was a profit it would increase Equity, a loss then it would decrease Equity. Since it's not really worthwhile doing a estimated cost for everything that you have, I'd just report it as income like you are doing and let the amount of equity increase proportionately. So, implicitly you always had roughly that amount of equity, but some of it was in the form of assets, and now you're liquidating those assets so the amount shows up in GnuCash. When you buy new things you might sell later, you could consider adding them as assets to keep track of this explicitly (but even then you have problems-- the price of things changes with time and you might not want to keep up with those price changes, it's a lot of extra work for a family budget) -- for stuff you already have it's better to treat things as you are doing and just treat the money as income-- it's easier and doesn't really change anything-- you always had that in equity, some of it was just off the books and now you are bringing it into the books.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ddaf7271004c475e64b50bd5c65277",
"text": "\"This formula is not calculating \"\"Earnings\"\". Instead, it is calculating \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\". As the original poster notes, the \"\"Earnings\"\" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization. The \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
},
{
"docid": "b693d1e182c3ed28bb173f8f81004e15",
"text": "\"There are probably many correct answers to this question, but for most people, the main reason is qualified dividends. To be a qualified dividend (and therefore eligible for lower tax rates), the dividend-paying stock or fund must be held for \"\"more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date\"\". Since many stocks and funds pay out dividends at the end of the year, that means it takes until mid- to late February to determine if you held them, and therefore made the dividend qualified. Brokerages don't want to send out 1099s in January and then possibly have to send out revised versions if you decide to sell something that paid a dividend in December that otherwise would have been qualified.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eaf4e43d9249778140d89000cb0db405
|
Am I putting myself at any security risks by putting all my money in one bank institution?
|
[
{
"docid": "8bb302a7109f71f553e50dcc3bea6301",
"text": "For small amounts I wouldn't be too concerned. There are two factors I can think of: For relatively small amounts and when dealing with reputable banking institutions there should be little concern of banking with a single bank. It's what most people do.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a47c65b0a06c138ef8250846a5a28aba",
"text": "There are two parts to this. Firstly, if you are also living in the property you have bought, then you should not consider it to be an investment. You need it to provide shelter, and the market value is irrelevant unless/until you decide to move. Of course, if your move is forced at a time not of your choosing then if the market value has dropped, you might lose out. No-one can accurately predict the housing market any more than they can predict interest rates on normal savings accounts, the movement of the stock market, etc. Secondly, if you just have a lump sum and you want to invest it safely, the bank is one of the safest places to keep it. It is protected / underwritten by EU law (assuming you are in the EU) up to €100,000. See for example here which is about the UK and Brexit in particular but mentions the EU blanket protection. The other things you could do with it - buy property, gold, art works, stocks and shares, whatever thing you think will be least likely to lose value over time - would not be protected in the same way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af8d1a231445e40ec2269437e4e6821e",
"text": "http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ed2cb593ee57de5f9f887f837964aa8",
"text": "A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55ffd718f6d814e05d9b1f6be1336852",
"text": "\"With regard to your edit (although I didn't downvote): one way to reduce the security risk is to separate the payment from the ability to drain your account. A considerable part of the security risk is inherent in giving people a number which is directly linked to a bank account where you keep all your money. If you don't want that risk, don't do that. Instead of (or in addition to) trying to reduce the chance of fraud, you can reduce the impact of fraud, even if it occurs, by not paying for things using the details of an account where you have all your money. Trying to protect against fraud while keeping all your money in the account is sort of like carrying around thousands of dollars in cash in your wallet and then worrying about how to defend against robbery. Yes, you can carry a weapon or hire a bodyguard, but it's probably simpler to just not carry that much money in the first place. You already mentioned one solution with your option #1, which is to just keep a small amount of money in a separate account and use that for online payments. Assuming you can easily transfer money in and out of this account via online banking, this effectively is what you say you want in your edit: you log in to your bank online, but rather than \"\"informing it\"\" you're about to make a payment, you just transfer money in. You'll probably have to keep a small amount of money in the account to keep it open, but if this is an important issue for you, that shouldn't be that big a deal. Another solution is a credit card. With a credit card, you simply make the payment online. In the US, if the merchant (or someone else stealing the info) makes fraudulent charges, the credit card company assumes the liability and the consumer suffers only the inconvenience of having to get a new card issued. I don't know what the UK laws are regarding credit vs. debit fraud, but some sites I found seem to suggest that credit cards have fraud protection in the UK as well. This is probably worth looking into if you are concerned about fraud.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12cc993d5189d5518a747f28b8e28f5e",
"text": "The mode of payment mentioned by your bank is called the ACH(Automatic Clearing House) which means that anyone(Trusted payment gateway owners like banks themselves) can process payments. There can be a fraud declared against any payment that you have made and you can get every single penny back. This amount can not be withdrawn in cash at all. However for your situation I would suggest that you ask your bank to block any transactions above the amount of a specific sum, this way they will require your authorization to finalize the payment. You should feel safe after this. Also no one can access any other account apart from the one whose details you are giving out so do not worry about this guy(or anyone else for that matter) to be able to access your other accounts. Hope this helps. (I have experience in payment gateways so I do understand these procedures.) Cheers!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "246426eb7dd8792a0944eef30d1d2258",
"text": "There is nothing to worry about. There is absolutely nothing unusual about moving money between your own accounts, even if they are in separate financial institutions. I moved $200,000 when I was getting ready to by my house; I have moved similar sized chunks for other purposes. A large transfer may get some attention to make sure you aren't doing anything illegal with the money and aren't being scammed... but if the transaction is legitimate, that attention is harmless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dec0fda4f7e40dbdf163ab81de3f0b1",
"text": "\"Depends on your definition of \"\"secure\"\". The most \"\"secure\"\" investment from a preservation of principal point of view is a non-tradable, general obligation government bond. (Like a US or Canadian savings bond.) Why? There is no interest rate risk -- you can't lose money. The downside is that the rate is not so good. If you want returns and a reasonably high level of security, you need a diversified portfolio.\"",
"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": "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": "c96289c6f10cf5dd3412d213afde0f90",
"text": "Usually the most significant risk scenarios here are: Third parties can abuse your routing/account numbers to initiate debits, but this is a type of fraud that is easily traced. It can happen, but it is more likely that it would be a scenario where you were specifically targeted vs. the victim of some random fraud. Defending against someone who is specifically going after you is very difficult, especially if you don't know about it. Your SSN isnt used for the bank transfer, you are providing it so that the entity making the payments can report on payments to you for tax purposes. If you are truly worried about this type of scenario, I suggest setting up a dedicated savings account for the purpose of receiving these payments and then sweeping (either manually or automatically) the funds into another account. Most stock brokers will allow you to automate this, and most banks will let you do this manually.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ebdbea206e55f6b98f9c94e92355ff30",
"text": "In the US, I would say the risk is exactly the same. If your accounts are withing the FDIC amount (currently $250,000) your balance is 100% covered in case of a failure. You are giving up a larger network of ATMs in some cases. You are also perhaps giving up the number of branches you can visit, the hours the bank is open and maybe how well the website works. The features might be less, but the protection for your deposits is the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c626a81745be5fed0815f903726cceb",
"text": "As mentioned in the other answer, you can't invest all of your money in one slightly risky place, and to receive a significant return on your investment, you must take on a reasonable amount of risk, and must manage that risk by diversifying your portfolio of investments. Unfortunately, answers to this question will be somewhat opinion and experience-based. I have two suggestions, however both involve risk, which you will likely experience in any situation. Peer to Peer Lending In my own situation, I've placed a large sum of money into peer-to-peer lending sites, such as LendingClub. LendingClub specifically advertises that 98% of its user base that invests in 100 notes or more of relatively equal size receive positive returns, and I'm sure you'll see similar statements in other similarly established vendors in this area. Historical averages in this industry can be between 5-7%, you may be able to perform above or below this average. The returns on peer to peer lending investments are paid out fairly frequently, as each loan you invest in on the site pays back into your account every time the recipient of the loan makes a payment. If you invest in small amounts / fractions of several hundred loans, you're receiving several small payments throughout the month on various dates. You can withdraw any money you have received back that hasn't been invested, or money you have in the account that hasn't been invested, at any time for personal spending. However, this involves various risks, which have to be considered (Such as someone you've loaned money to on the site defaulting). Rental Property / Property itself I'm also considering purchasing a very cheap home, and renting it out to tenants for passive income. This is something I would consider a possibility for you. On this front, you have the savings to do the same. It would be possible for you to afford the 20% downpayment on a very low cost home (Say, $100,000 or less up to $200,000 depending on your area), but you'd need to be able to pay for the monthly mortgage payment until you had a tenant, and would need to be able to afford any on-going maintenance, however ideally you'd factor that into the amount you charged tenants. You could very likely get a mortgage for a place, and have a tenant that pays you rent that exceeds the amount you pay for the mortgage and any maintenance costs, earning you a profit and therefore passive income. However, rental properties involve risks in that you might have trouble finding tenants or keeping tenants or keeping the property in good shape, and it's possible the property value could decrease. One could also generalize that property is a somewhat 'safe' investment, in that property values tend to increase over time, and while you may not significantly over-run inflation's increase, you may be able to get more value out of the property by renting it out in the mean time. Additional Note on Credit You mention you have a credit card payment that you're making, to build credit. I'd like to place here, for your reference, that you do not need to carry a balance to build credit. Having active accounts and ensuring you don't miss payments builds your history. To be more specific, your history is based off of many different aspects, such as: I'm sure I missed a couple of things on this front, you should be able to find this information with some research. Wanted to make sure you weren't carrying a balance simply due to the common myth that you must do so to build credit. Summary The items mentioned above are suggestions, but whatever you choose to invest in, you should carefully spread out / diversify your portfolio across a variety of different areas. It would not be advisable to stick to just one investment method (Say, either of the two above) and not also invest in stocks / bonds or other types of investments as well. You can certainly decide what percentage of your portfolio you want to invest in different areas (for instance X% of assets in Stocks/bonds, Y% in real-estate, etc), but it does make the most sense to not have all of your eggs in one basket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95cdeb96ff1e7f301c7cfab14bf5b587",
"text": "\"Yes you should worry and take care not to violate the law or provide any appearance of impropriety. Every bank in the USA is required under the Bank Secrecy Act to report cash transactions over $10,000 the same day to the IRS -- and here's the fun secret part -- without notification to the depositor. But splitting the deposits up into smaller amounts is also a crime, called \"\"structuring\"\". On occasion there is a news story where a retail business that naturally must deposit cash from customers will be (falsely?) accused of structuring, e.g.: Feds seize grocery store's entire bank account -- Institute for Justice defends grocer Under the legal doctrine of civil asset forfeiture, your money can be accused of a crime, seized, and tried separately from its owner. The actual cases indicate the money as defendant, i.e. \"\"US v $124,700\"\" In this somewhat bizarre system of \"\"justice\"\", the owner need not be charged with a crime, and is not in immediate peril of going to prison (about the only upside in this, but might be temporary because the authorities haven't charged the owner yet). When only the money is charged with a crime, there is no requirement for the government to supply a public defender for the owners who can not afford a lawyer.... can not afford a lawyer, because the government took all their money....\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8151494626fa89a0c52f6bc89f2d4c98",
"text": "Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fcbc922634ee58509a05802d31354fb7
|
UK Ltd taxation on stocks/bonds income and real estate rent income
|
[
{
"docid": "3a24e8c7fb56eacce57030b2d4d34c3c",
"text": "For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0594a4e75765b6329895c4caf3c517ac",
"text": "I'm answering your second and third point. For first point it depends on case by case basis from which organization you are opening your trust. Trust Account are of different type: To earn interest you account should be of below type. Interest in possession trusts and Income Tax Trustees are responsible for declaring and paying Income Tax on income received by the trust. They do this on a Trust and Estate Tax Return each year. There are different rates depending on the type of income - as shown below. Type of income Income Tax rate 2014 to 2015 tax year Rent, trading and savings 20% (basic rate) UK dividends (such as income from stocks and shares) 10% (dividend ordinary rate)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a09cd21f070cc0902cff893c3827266a",
"text": "\"Stocks (among other property) currently is allowed a \"\"stepped-up basis\"\" when valuing for estate tax purpose. From the US IRS web page: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: The fair market value (FMV) of the property on the date of the decedent's death. The FMV of the property on the alternate valuation date if the executor of the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. See the Instructions for Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Your question continues \"\"the person that died still has to pay taxes on their profits in the year they died, right?\"\" Yes. The estate would be subject to tax on realized gains/losses prior to death.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cefa747a26f91771c00fef1174e25926",
"text": "Ok, still a high proportion, but the claim in the title is a complete fabrication, disputed by the article itself. Also keep in mind that this is a % of net income and not gross. Edit: here is a link to the actual report: https://kfcontent.blob.core.windows.net/research/707/documents/en/the-uk-tenant-survey-2017-4743.pdf I'm very skeptical about the scientific rigor of this whole thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e681e4b1b318f21ad1c28a92d8859cea",
"text": "There is no clear answer, it might be or not be. Depends a lot on your situation. 1)Yes it is taxable but as Italy has a double taxation agreement with UK, you might not have to pay. You can get a detailed guidance on the HMRC website. 2) Apply here for a certificate of residence 3)You can only claim back if Italy taxes you more than UK would. If it is less than you will have to pay the remaining portion to HMRC. You do this in the self assessment form/tax return/call up HMRC. 4)Tell the truth, explain your whole scenario and don't withheld relevant information assuming you may lower you tax by doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efa51fe7c17d14246a73d36a35151dd5",
"text": "\"I would say similar rules apply in the US. If you have a net loss from rental property, you certainly can claim that loss against your personal income. There are various rules around this though that make it a bit less clear cut. If you are a \"\"real estate professional\"\", which basicly means you spend at least 750 hours per year working on your rental properties (or related activities), then all losses are deductible against any other ordinary income you have. If you aren't a \"\"real estate professional\"\", then your rental income is considered a \"\"passive activity\"\" and losses you can count against regular income are limited to $25,000 per year (with a carry-forward provision) and begin to phase out entirely if your income is between $100,000 and $150,000. So, the law here is structured to allow most small-time investors to take rental real estate losses against their ordinary income, but the income phase-out provision is designed to prevent the wealthy from using rental property losses to avoid taxation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3275902f1c0f9720de7ffcf33556f77",
"text": "\"The shares are \"\"imputed income\"\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \"\"US Person\"\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e30c1a9481ded4a26c6feb5502718faa",
"text": "My understanding is you can create a company 0 value. Then you need to either loan the company the money to buy the building (it will still have 0 value as it will have a debt equal to it's assets) or sell share to investors at any price you like to raise the money to buy the building. Once shares have value (as valued by a chartered accountant - not anyone can do this) then anyone recieving shares will have to pay income tax. This is why keeping the shares as no value for as long as possible can be preferable. Also a benefit of using share options. talk to your investors, see what they require.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca816def6c13f526c18f1951bde048f8",
"text": "lets sat If I buy a house on company's name, It will declared as expense and will deduct from profit. but I am not sure If I can rent it out as a IT LTD company. that's my questions. Buying a house is not an expense, it is a transfer of assets. The house itself, is an asset. So if you have $100,000 in cash, buy a house for $35,000, your total assets will remain the same ($100,000), but your asset mix will be different (instead of $100,000 in cash, you now have $65,000 in cash, and $35,000 in property). You can expense the costs associated with buying the house (e.g. taxes, interest, legal fees), but the house itself stays on the asset side of your balance sheet. To refine the example above, if you buy the house for $35,000, and pay $5,000 in misc fees related to purchasing the house, your assets are now $95,000 ($60,000 in cash, $35,000 in house): the $5,000 reduction is from the actual fees associated with the purchase. It is these fees that lower your profit. Being not familiar with UK rules, in Canada and the US, and likely the UK, you would then depreciate the house over its useful life. The depreciation expense is deducted from your annual net income. If you rent out the house, what you can do is expense any maintenance fees, taxes, etc., on the house itself. This expense will count as a negative towards the rental income, lowering your effective taxable income from the rental. E.g. rent out a flat at $1,000/month, but your property taxes are $3,500/year, so your net income for tax purposes (i.e. your taxable income in this case) is $12,000-$3,500=$8,500.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2feb1c44e0071295f10f2c3ef34941bb",
"text": "\"OK, it's a bit of a minefield but here goes! You only pay corporation tax in the UK on any profit made, so your \"\"salary\"\" would not be classed as part of the profit, so in the example you give you would only pay corporation tax on £4k less your \"\"salary\"\" ie £3,200 so profit on the £800 remaining gross profit. You don't say if your figures are monthly, annual etc, but you only pay income tax if you earn over £11.5k in any given tax year, the rates increase as your income does, check here: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates You may have a different tax code, you would need to check that with HMRC but the link gives the \"\"default\"\" position which is correct for most people. https://www.itcontracting.com/limited-company-dividends/ If the figures you give are monthly then I would consult an accountant as they are likely to save you more than they will charge for their services. You will probably find it is most tax efficient to pay yourself a dividend from the company's profits but check with an accountant. More info: https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/taking-money-out-of-a-limited-company\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5610e1b3aabcd6667baa0f09dbb5830",
"text": "Income and Capital are taxed separately in the uk. You probably can't get dividends paid gross even in ISA's you pay the basic rate of tax on dividends only higher rate tax payers get tax benefit from dividends. What you could do is invest in splits (Spilt capital investment trusts ) in the share class where all the return comes as capital and use up some of your yearly CGT allowance that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b906cdacb29255d729eb9ce051426cc4",
"text": "\"Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value. So each year, another .02N is removed. Assume the property value rises with inflation. Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N. After inflation return. Let's assume a 20% rate. And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation. Inflation is still taxable. Result Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase. Return after inflation. After-inflation return minus property taxes. Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry). Amount left. If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes. But with the property, that drops to .008N. Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k. So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year? If so, then no problem. If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house. On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N. You still need housing out of the .036N without the house. These formulas should be considered examples. I don't know how much your property taxes might be. Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes. Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation. You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return. But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is. If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly. The \"\"no house\"\" number becomes .024N. The \"\"with house\"\" number becomes So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed). There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the \"\"with house\"\" option. Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year. This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually. Lower property taxes would of course make this better. Higher property taxes would be even less feasible. When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home. If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested. You'll also have less tied up with property taxes. It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k. Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes. You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually. There are options with a house that you don't have without one.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "f047a86a26ffe9decad612ab2b5ed4e0",
"text": "Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85e8f159933518a5a1796e99a84b2ce8",
"text": "Ugh. Really? I thought this subreddit was smarter than this. 1) You pay taxes on net income, not sales. Expenses are tax deductible. 2) This took place in the UK, which operates on a different set of tax rules than many of us are familiar with. 3) The company still pays other taxes even if they don't pay income tax. In the US, examples would be payroll taxes including the employer portion of things like SS and Medicare, but I'm sure the UK has similar programs funded in a similar manner. To the extent that they own their buildings, they also pay property taxes. They globally source their supplies, which means they also pay import taxes. There are a ton of other taxes that a company pays. 4) Tax laws are complex because business is complex. Inflammatory headlines like this serve no purpose whatsoever.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0022270d8e8c73a494c4e73d05f2ab31
|
Can anyone else make an online payment for me?
|
[
{
"docid": "62d5c32ad49fc3189ebd8b98819ce212",
"text": "Your relative in the US could buy a pre-paid Visa (aka Visa gift card) and give you the numbers on that to pay. They're available for purchase at many grocery/convenience stores. In most (all??) cases there'll be a fee of a several dollars charged in addition to the face value of the card. The biggest headache I can think of would be that pre-paid cards are generally only available in $25/50/100 increments; unless the current SAT price matches one of the standard increments they'll have to buy the next card size up and then get the remaining money off it in a separate transaction. A grocery store would be one of the easier places for your relative to do this because cashiers there are used to splitting transactions across multiple payment sources (something not true at most other types of business) due to regularly processing transactions partially paid for via welfare benefits.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fc6cd8481d4716ff1f1c8e3b63a62584",
"text": "If you are regularly taking payments of $10,000 I'm very surprised you aren't already set up to accept credit card payments. If you are going to be doing this much in the future it would be a good thing to investigate. Some other options might be:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f25fafb34d78ed0c7ffedc3a21440848",
"text": "Ask your bank or credit union. Mine will let me issue recurring payments to anyone, electronically if they can, if not a check gets mailed and (I presume) I get billed for the postage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15a2c99870047a0f0da6754e8d2abb9e",
"text": "Hence why I pay bill by bill and don't authorize automatic withdrawals. Are you telling me your online banking and/or utility company don't allow you to make non automatic payments online? If so I guess thats the answer to OP's question...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5a71f2c3428ec167dea761168f72b54",
"text": "Very difficult to pay a credit card bill on a one off payment. Once you have selected HSBC card and used the secure key to confirm bill payment, in my experience it comes up error.mafter 3 attempts i was locked out of the account. Mush easier to use an account from another bank to pay the bill.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f37161273d28eaa14946bf84ac9c41c",
"text": "\"I made this mistake and tried calling Paypal...the first time I have ever been unhappy with their service. The girl gave me some number but didn't make it clear whether it was an order reference number or a reference phone number for the company I ordered from. I called within 10 minutes of placing my order and they were unable to cancel or change the payment method. I did find however, that even though you can't pay paypal with your credit card, some banks will let you. I went into my account and \"\"paid\"\" my account the amount needed using my credit card from the same bank that I had intended to use in the first place...hopefully it went through quickly enough to not get a service fee from Paypal\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13c9556a6bfbc8744a7927055097b8ac",
"text": "Goddady.com will gladly accept payment from your personal account. They don't really care, as long as you approve the charge, whose name the account is in. I'm not sure PayPal even check the names on the invoice and the account to match, they just want you to login. However, depending on your local laws, you may be required to have a separate business account. In the US, for example, corporations must have their own accounts. For other entities with limited liability (like LLC or LLP) it is advised to have a separate account to avoid piercing corporate veil. Also, if your business name is not your personal name - clients may want to verify that the checks/transfers are deposited under your business name. In some countries checks written out to X cannot be endorsed by X to be transferred to Y. That may affect your decision as well. You'll have to get a proper legal advice valid in your jurisdiction to know the answer to your question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "179b9fdd54981b3261551dad61161e8a",
"text": "\">You could say the same about any public utility. (except the one largest one, technically) There are literally thousands and thousands of processors, which is not the case with utilities. Additionally, processors don't need to have any kind of office or presence anywhere near the business they're serving, which means being able to choose without geographical restrictions. Also, PayPal is not a utility. This is not a relevant comparison. >Are you saying they are unable, both contractually and technically, to affect the consumer side? They'd have to revoke their partnerships with banks who issue cards, which they aren't going to do, because consumers using cards is how they make money. Banks could choose not to issue cards, but they're already free to do that. (There's no right to a credit card.) >But also by selectively quoting me you are (deliberately?) side-stepping what actually happened in the WikiLeaks case, to focus on the consumer side. Visa and Mastercard prohibited payments to Wikileaks on the basis of WL allegedly facilitating illegal activity. How is that relevant to what PayPal's doing? >You must buy things in different corners of the Internet than I do. The customer experience (to me) is that there is \"\"the store\"\" or you can pay with PayPal. Yes, \"\"the store\"\" is actually a payment processor but this is a quick slippery slope to \"\"what? You can just set up your own payment processor once they've all blocked your legal business\"\". What are you talking about? You acknowledge that the store has its own processing but somehow that's not enough because someday they might not have processing and have to go through PayPal? Processors *already* deny service to legal businesses. Notably, anything considered \"\"high risk\"\" - which includes travel services, pharmaceuticals, firearms, adult entertainment, telemarketing, debt collection, tobacco, and more - but also for businesses with poor credit, high chargebacks, business practices they don't agree with, lots of international transactions, etc. It literally happens all the time. And, there are so many processors (tens of thousands) that there's another processor willing to step in. Tons of websites don't even use PayPal anymore, and the ones that do often layer it on top of a different payment option. (PayPal is trying hard to increase their presence in stores because of the competition in the internet space.) No one is unable to accept payments if they're barred from PayPal. PayPal actually cuts off accounts all the time because people use it for things against PayPal's TOS. Amazon payments, Shopify, and Stripe are the ones that most people know off the tops of their heads for online processing, but there are literally thousands. No one is somehow unable to conduct business if they can't use PayPal. The only time that businesses can't really get processing is if they do something like rack up chargebacks and disappear or commit fraud against a processor. In those cases, the processor can put that business on the Terminated Merchant File (or MATCH list) and other processors will see that there's been a problem with that customer and not take them on. Even in those cases, businesses can rectify the issue and get off the MATCH list or they can look for processors that will serve them anyway and expect to pay a premium for it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efc61f4ca2cbf4747a962aacb18f1111",
"text": "There are two separate cases here that people are not separating. Any card will allow you to pay an amount not exceeding the actually posted charges. Some cards will allow you to pay more than this, some will not. My parents have deliberately overpaid as a means of having a higher credit limit, I've been denied (different card) when trying to do the same thing and the website wouldn't even allow me to pay temporary charges that hadn't yet become real. (A human operator would allow paying those, though.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37332d0ccd73d33964ee61992a644e94",
"text": "I paid with my Visa credit card. Generally on credit cards, the holds / authorizations are valid for a month on single transactions. So if you haven't been charged on your card, it seems that there was some technical error with the online market place. They were not able to trace this. Is there an expiration date on these kind of online purchases? Should I expect the money to be withdrawn at any time? There are 2 different aspects, one is do you still owe them money and can they ask you; It would be yes, I don't know the timelines. This would depend on establishing a contract etc. They can contact you for unpaid invoice. Can they again charge the credit card automatically ... generally No.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95f2f611920c54d8dff0a27016ba995b",
"text": "Can a third party deposit to my account? (Say I'm selling something and I ask him/her to just deposit the payment to my account? No, but PayPal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f018359d0739570b8f8a82964cfbbd",
"text": "\"Many people do not know that bank online bill paying services are not provided directly by the bank. Banks often \"\"farm out\"\" this task to third party providers of bill paying services. These services in turn may farm out the customer service function to agents in foreign countries. These customer service agents have access to your account number, social security number, and your balance. This means that people have your personal information in countries where you have no rights and where security is not good and where enemies of your nation can easily access that information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75e2776ae73972de03c962b7d71f99af",
"text": "A majority of people in whichever country they reside, use the internet and make payment online. Using online services is indeed another technological advancement that allows you to complete your payments sitting at home at any time round the clock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "267b4402f53ee29f4dc1807766846c22",
"text": "\"Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? I'd guess that's to protect the card company, not you. The number of the card is guessable, but each other bit of information makes it much harder to guess (the CVV code makes it ~1000 times harder, the expiration date makes it about 50-100 times harder). Since you wouldn't be responsible for the payment anyway, adding security for online transactions provides the company with less liability. As for the security of your information online, that's trickier. It depends entirely on the site you're using whether they've implemented the appropriate security measures or not (and, given the SSL attacks we've seen, even that might not help). (source: I'm a web developer, and have worked on payments systems before that implemented the security mandated by the cards). At the very least never, ever type in your information on a non-https site (there's normally a little \"\"lock\"\" icon that will display if you're on HTTPS instead of HTTP).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f584304446560ac54028376a2877659d",
"text": "Why wouldn't one of the existing crowdsourcing systems meet your needs? Yes, they charge a commission, but they have already addressed the issues you raise and specifically they provide the third-party accounting you want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e66617ea5c04aa50aa15c8beb05dc26",
"text": "I suppose but it's probably all handled by the individual payment operators, not ck Louis. For instance, several online merchants I go to have their own payment system PLUS PayPal PLUS google checkout, and sometimes even instructions for check payment or something. I can imagine dwolla fitting in the list.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5863e29e5b47fbfcb177771756856fd6
|
RRP/list price/retail price and cars?
|
[
{
"docid": "9adbfcff4d4780479c1deb5a8d63900e",
"text": "\"The retailer can sell for whatever price they like, with the caveats that if they consistently sell at a loss they will go out of business and if they set the price too high they will not sell anything! As you mentioned, RRP is only a recommended price, the manufacturer cannot enfore it at all for legal reasons. Having said that I used to work in retail (not cars) and if we discounted a certain manufacturers products and they found out about it, we would find they had suddenly run out of stock when we tried to order more. So manufacturers do have some control over this type of thing depending on how \"\"underhand\"\" they want to be about it. My background is in retail management but not selling cars, but my understanding is the law regards RRP is the same.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eacfee9951381bebcf1c60ba969680d7",
"text": "\"I'll echo: many factors. Brand: There are generally two levels of pricing: \"\"major brand\"\" and \"\"discount brand\"\". You can generally expect the \"\"discount brand\"\" to cost about 5-10 cents less per gallon in the same neighborhood as \"\"major brand\"\" gas. This is for a number of sub-factors; chief among them is that not all gasolines are created equal. A lot of the major brands (Shell, Texaco, Chevron, BP, Exxon) have proprietary detergents and cleaning agents that the discount brands do not. They're also generally closer to the real octane rating of the gas, have less ethanol (you'll see the sign that says \"\"contains up to 10% ethanol\"\"; the bargain brands are right up at that limit while the top-tier brands keep it lower) and have stricter requirements about storage tank maintenance. Anyone who tells you that all gas is the same, send em my way; I tried to save a few bux buying the cheaper stuff and now my car needs an engine overhaul because of fouling causing premature wear. A couple of my co-workers got a fuel system overhaul free from the local supermarket because the storage tank wasn't properly purged, and they got water into their gas tanks. Market Price: Yes, this is of course a factor. Generally, gas prices at the pump rise very quickly when the market price of crude or gasoline goes up, then fall more slowly than the market price, because the margins on gas sales for a C-store are very slim. When prices change, the C-stores lose either way; when prices rise they have to pay more than they got from the last tankful to buy the next one, and when prices fall they don't recoup the cost of their current tank. By quickly increasing the price to match commodities market prices, then gradually lowering them over time even if the market collapses, they mitigate the losses both ways. Overhead: A gas station right next to a highway probably had to pay more for that land, both to buy/lease it and in property taxes. Nicer (newer, cleaner) stations generally have to pay more to stay that way. The higher your operating costs, the more you'll have to charge for your gas. You can usually do so because the nicer station will attract customers willing to pay a few cents more for the nicer facilities. Taxation: Most States charge a tax on gasoline, in addition to a Federal tax on gas. That revenue either goes into the State's general fund, or is earmarked for transportation costs like road maintenance. California's gas prices are sky-high across the state, because they have the highest gas tax. I'm not sure Colorado, Wyoming and Montana have gas taxes at all. Proximity to other stations: No matter what you have to pay for the land and facilities, if there's another station across the street, you have to be within a penny of their price or people will vote with their feet. While \"\"predatory pricing\"\" (taking a loss on sales in one area, buffered by profits elsewhere, in order to drive out competition) is technically illegal, you see it all the time in the C-store industry and it is very difficult to prove. This is a primary cause of neighborhood-to-neighborhood changes; a C-store will look around the other stations on their street corner, and the ones down the road a block or two each direction, when determining what they can sell gas for that day. The guy five blocks down has a completely different pool of competing stations. Population Distribution: With a lot of people in a particular area, there's a big \"\"pie\"\" of customer dollars for C-stores to compete for. This generally leads to increased prices because the stations don't have to be AS cutthroat; regardless of how good your price is, you have only so many pumps, and at some point people will pay more to use the open pump than wait for the cheaper one. The reverse is true in rural areas; with only two stations in an entire small town, those two stations will become extremely cutthroat. However, rural prices also vary more; with only one station in easy walking distance from where you ran out of gas, they can charge you $6 to fill that gallon gas can if they want, and you'll pay it because the next gas station's another 20 miles down the road and probably has even higher prices. This, along with overhead, is generally why the Rockies states have the lowest average prices; land's cheap and people are scarce in Wyoming. But, the \"\"price-gouging\"\" can be seen in the rural Southwest, where there's a LOT of ground to cover between gas stations, and so the \"\"last chance gas\"\" along major highways just outside of town, each a nickel to a dime more than the previous station, is a common stereotype. Transportation costs: Prices are higher on the East and West Coasts than in the Gulf States for a very simple reason; the bulk of the U.S. refinery capacity is along the Gulf Coast between Galveston and the Florida border. The further you are from there, the more it costs to get the fuel from the refinery to the gas station, and that cost is reflected at the pump. In fact, the East Coast imports gasoline by tanker even though the United States is now a net exporter of gasoline, because it's cheaper to buy it from foreign sources than it would be to watch it drip through the limited pipeline capacity that exists between the Gulf states and the Eastern Seaboard.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acb6347e5d3d910611bd8d83452fe9dc",
"text": "\"He sounds like a very bad salesman and I should know, because I was a sales manager at a bike shop which sold bikes from $200 to $10k. Now I had a clear goal, which is to sell as many bikes at the highest price possible, but I didn't do that by making customers uncomfortable. Each customer received different treatment depending on what they were looking for. For example, the $200 beach cruiser buyer was going to be told \"\"You look great on that bike... can I ring you up?\"\", whereas the racer interested in saving grams will receive a detailed discussion about his bike options. The $200 bike customer won't have very sophisticated questions (although I could give a lecture on cruisers), so giving out too much info complicates a likely quick impulse buy. On the other hand, we are building a relationship with the racer which will include detailed fitting sessions and time-consuming mechanical service. While I also want to close a high priced sale, it will take several visits to prove both I have the right bike and this is the best shop. But no matter what you were buying, I was always pleasant and unhurried, and my customers left happy. Specifically with this situation of high pressure tactics, the problem is the competition with internet sales. Often customers will have only 2 criteria, the model and the price, and if a shop does not meet both, the customer walks right out. Possibly this sales guy is a bit cynical with his tactics, but the reality is that if you have no relationship with that shop, you fall into the category of internet buyer. One thing the sales guy could have done was not tell you we wasn't going to honor this price if you came back. Occasionally there would be an internet buyer, and I showed no unpleasantness even though internet sellers could crush our brick and mortar shop. I would mention a competitive price and if he bought it, great, and if not, that's just business. As for the buyer, I would treat these tactics with a certain detachment. I would personally chuckle at his treatment and ask if I could kick the tires, an user car saying. I suppose the bottom line is if you are ready to buy this specific model, and if the price is right (and the shop is ethical so you won't get ripped off with garbage), then you have to be ready to buy on the spot. I will point out one horrible experience I had at a car dealership. I came in 15 minutes before closing and a sales person gave me a price almost a third cheaper than list. I wasn't ready to buy on my first visit ever to a dealership and of course, buying a car has all kinds of hidden fees. I asked will this be the price tomorrow, and he said absolutely not. I told him, \"\"so if I come in tomorrow morning, your dealer clock has only gone 15 minutes\"\" but that logic did not register with him. Maybe he thought I was going to spend 15k on the spot and pressure tactics would work on me. I never came back, but I did go another dealership and bought a car after a reasonable negotiation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e118f7b494caf6f02add38f418a4ed4",
"text": "Question 1: Yes Question 2: There is no simple formula. Car insurance is mostly Statistics, because you have so many millions of cases that the variance is really low. This also means that, because the cost can be estimated so precisely, it is difficult to make an offer better than the competitors. For that reason every insurance company makes there own, arbitrary, segmentation of the data which leads them identify low risk groups they can offer a bonus to. Common ones are type of car or and driving experience, but it could be anything that is not forbidden by anti-discrimination-laws. Also additional perks like towing insurance etc. may give them an opportunity do differentiate themselves or to make easy profit. In fact it is a common tactic to offer prices that make close to no profit to fill up your book, then raise tariffs in then following years an make you profit with those who are to lazy to switch.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca5eeab62ad25a710f6f6d4e5a082e79",
"text": "No, this is misbehavior of sales software that tries to automatically find the price point which maximizes profit. There have been much worse examples. Ignore it. The robot will eventually see that no sales occurred and try a more reasonable price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b4bd4cefd270190ccc26a077d32907a",
"text": "I want to add that in my country, Israel, the tax on cars is extraordinarily high. Cars in Israel cost in average twice or more then in the US (for example, a new VW golf with the cheapest configuration costs around 25kUSD). Israel's average salary is lower then US's average salary and the fuel in Israel costs twice. Therefore, having a regular car in Israel costs the same as having a luxury car in the US. Most households have a car. It's all about priorities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1259d4d740cf27053cb763d58171860c",
"text": "\"Suggested way to make the decision to repair or buy: Figure out what it will cost to repair your car. (If necessary, pay a garage to evaluate it \"\"as if your daughter was interested in buying it\"\".) Then think about whether you would pay that much to buy a car just like yours but without those problems. If the answer is yes, fixing it us probably your most cost-effective choice, even if it is a big bill. If the answer is no, consider a used car, and again have the mechanic check it for any lurking horrors before committing to buy it. That avoids the \"\"proprty-line tax\"\" where a new car loses a significant percentage of its value the moment it leaves the dealership. An almost-toy car us virtually indistinguishable from a new car, costs much less, and realistically has about the same expected life span. I bought a new car once -- at about $300 over the dealer's real (as opposed to sticker) cost, since I was willing to take the one he was stuck with from the previous model year. (Thank you, Consumer Reports, for providing the dealer's cost info and making this a five-minute transaction.) If it hadn't suffered flood damage I'd probably still be driving it, and even so I sorta regret not pricing what it would have cost go completely replace the engine. If you really plan to drive it until it is completely unrepairable, you may be able to justify a new car... But realistically buying a one- or two-year-old car would have been a better choice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e513a42cc62175045e50d61a634a5d83",
"text": "If an offered price is below what people are willing to sell for, it is simply ignored. (What happens if I offer to buy lots of cars as long as I only have to pay $2 each? Same thing.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d233f6bf99fad1cc8751ba1049fd362",
"text": "You could consider buying a fairly recent used car from CarMax. They have fixed pricing, and you'd save a good amount of money on the car (since cars lose tons of value in their first year or so).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b792851016cf8ff3dd6156ff029a2333",
"text": "\"So this has been bugging me for a while, because I am facing a similar dilemma and I don't think anyone gave a clear answer. I bought a 2012 kia soul in 2012. 36 months financing at 300/mo. Will be done with my car loan in 2015. I plan on keeping it, while saving the same amount of money 300/mo until I buy my next car. But, I also have an option of trading it in for the the next car. Question: should I trade it in in 2015. should I keep it for 2 years more? 3 years more, before I buy the next car? What makes most financial sense and savings. I tried to dig up some data on edmunds - the trade-in value and \"\"true cost to own\"\" calculator. The make and model of my car started in 2010, so I do not have historical data, as well as \"\"cost to own\"\" calculator only spans 5 years. So - this is what I came up with: Where numbers in blue are totally made up/because I don't have the data for it. Granted, the trade-in values for the \"\"future\"\" years are guesstimated - based on Kia Soul's trade-in values from previous years (2010, 2011, 2012) But, this is handy, and as it gets closer to 2015 and beyond, I can re-plug in the data where it is available and have a better understanding of the trade-in vs keep it longer decision. Hope this helps. If the analysis is totally off the rocker, please let me know - i'll adjust it/delete it. Thank you\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f59c2644669e158fcd62eead224b5bb6",
"text": "\"Yeh sure! You will drive your car, hope the store will have what you look for, in the right size and color, and pay more. Rather than buy on-line. What's next? You will say \"\"it's the fault of the consumer\"\" that they chose to drive cars instead of horses with buggies? Brick and mortar retail can not be the same if you can shop and have huge selection on-line from anywhere were you live.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d656c57d1205ae4ee389bed0fd9b70d4",
"text": "New tires will increase the resale value of the car; while not by the full cost of the tires, it will not be entirely a sunk cost. You'd need to factor that in and find out how much the new tires increase the resale value of the car to determine how much they would truly cost you. However, I suspect they would cost you less than a $25,000 car a year early would. That new car would cost some amount over time - it sounds like you buy a new car every 8 years or so? So it would cost you $25/8 = $3.3k/year. That would, then, be the overall cost of the new car a year early - $3.3k (as it would mean one less year out of your old car, so assuming it was also $25k/8 year or similar, that year becomes lost and thus a cost).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37049d5b4651ff2d2b07af518e8d9f81",
"text": "You already got good answers on why you can't buy a Toyota from the factory, but my answer is regarding to the implied second part of your question: how to avoid haggling. I found a good way to avoid the haggling at a car dealership can be simply to not haggle. Go in with a different attitude. The main reason car dealers list inflated prices and then haggle is that they expect the customers to haggle. It is fundamentally based on distrust on both sides. Treat the sales person as your advisor, your business partner, as somebody you trust as an expert in his field, and you'll be surprised how the experience changes. Of course, make sure that the trust is justified. Sales reps have a fine line to walk. Of course they like to sell a car for more money, but they also do not want a reputation of overcharging customers. They'd rather you recommend them to your friends and post good reviews on Yelp. In the end, all reputable dealers effectively have a fixed-price policy, or close to it, even those who don't advertise it, and even for used cars. Haggling just prolongs the process to get there. And sales reps are people. Often people who hate the haggling part of their job as much as you do. I was in the market for a new (used) car a few months ago. In the end, it was between two cars (one of them a Toyota), both from the brand-name dealer's respective used car lots. In both cases, I went in knowing in advance what the car's fair market value was and what I was willing to pay (as well as details about the car, mileage, condition etc. - thanks to the Internet). Both cars were marked significantly higher. As soon as the sales rep realized that I wasn't even trying to haggle - the price dropped to the fair value. I didn't even have to ask for it. The rep even offered some extras thrown into the deal, things I hadn't even asked for (things like towing my old car to the junk yard).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "400acd072aaf20b5a499893d218bb5d5",
"text": "The car has value, but it is still a depreciating asset. You're paying far more to rent a space to park the car than you are to own and drive it if you look beyond the initial term of your loan. You could buy a space to keep the car, but at $225,000 for a permanent spot, renting is a much better deal. Would you travel home as frequently if you didn't have the fixed cost of a parking space rental giving you incentive to make the most of the car since you're paying for it either way? My additional question is whether the freedom to travel home on a whim is worth more than the financial freedom you would gain by investing the money for the long term. I don't think it's irresponsible if the short term freedom contributes significantly to your sense of well-being, but even if it isn't entirely sunk cost, the majority of it is. The only way you can really know whether it's worth it to you would be to park the car at home for a month or two to see if you can live without it. Fortunately you don't lose much money in this experiment, since you're only paying 1.9% interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62a47d5486de209fbe85d63ca4739c75",
"text": "As someone who's currently shopping for some winter wheels and has the raised blood pressure to go with that, I've got a few suggestions as to what would make me pick up the phone and call your or email you if you're advertising a vehicle. Keep in mind that if you're willing to deal with the additional hassle, you'll normally get the most money for a used car if you sell it privately. If it is worth the additional effort though is both a matter of judgement and if you're willing to put up with strange people like me :). Depending on the value of the vehicle and its rarity/desirability, you're looking at newspaper ads (probably won't get you much of a response these days), craigslist, Autotrader and similar, and last but not least, ebay. If you're trying to sell something that's easy to find because there are five at every street corner (think beige minivan), skip ebay. If it's worth below 5k-6k, I wouldn't bother with places where you have to pay to advertise, which leaves CL for the cheap stuff - that said, I'd still stick it on CL if it's advertised in other places. Heck, it's free after all. The figure out what sort of money you're asking for. Check the resources like KBB.com and have a look at your local CL for similar vehicles. Out here, certain types of vehicles (for example, Jeeps) sell quickly and often above even KBB.com. A little market research will help you come up with a good price. Just don't do things like asking a massively inflated price for a vehicle because you paid $x five years ago. All this shows that you have no idea what your vehicle is worth. Oh, and I'd always work out what the minimum I'd take is - leave yourself some haggle room but don't undersell the vehicle. Once you know where you advertise and for how much, pull together the basic facts for your vehicles and the points that would make it stand out. Basic facts about the car should include engine size, type of transmission, if it's AWD (where applicable), mileage. Color I can see on the pictures, but it's nice to include that, too. If you have service records, recently replaced a big ticket item (think transmission or similar) or had a very recent service, especially a big one where you had a timing belt and waterpump changed, mention it. Don't say the vehicle has a new engine if that was put in 100k miles ago, that's nice to mention but it's not new. If nobody's ever smoked in it, mention it. If it's got other outstanding features (super low mileage, summer only use etc) make sure to mention it that, too. Next, if it's got any faults that you know of - especially obvious ones - disclose them. People like me will most likely find the leaking shock absorber and the rust holes in the floor anyway, and it makes a much better impression if you do tell us about them beforehand. Trying to tell someone that your banana-shaped car that looks like the Blue Man Group used it for practise is actually pristine and accident-free isn't going to go down very well. Next, pull together the paperwork - make sure you've got the title (if there is a lien on the title, check with the lienholder before advertising the car so you know their procedure for releasing the title), any maintenance records you have, manuals, receipts etc. If the vehicle has a salvage title, try to find out why and mention it in the ad. I've just had a comedian phone me while I was driving to see his vehicle and leave a message that he didn't have a title and didn't seem to be willing to bother to get one, either. Obviously that put me in the right frame of mind, given that it was a 200 mile round trip. So don't do it - if you can't get a title, the schmuck you sold it to will have even less of a chance of getting one. And given that you are in California, a lot of people (including myself) react really badly to three years' worth of back registration, missing smog, expired registrations on something I'd expect to test drive etc. Essentially anything that would stop a potential cash buyer to drive it away on the spot. Next, clean the car - you know, the five years' of accumulated McD wrappers and inch thick layer of dirt (I'm only partially kidding, I've seem some pretty horrible stuff recently). Spend the two hours it takes to clean it or pay to have it valeted or detailed. Clean, shiny cars sell a lot better than a rolling recycling container. Oh, and last - make the effort take some decent photos. The more the merrier, shot in daylight (no photographing a black car after sunset) and if there is any damage, an additional photo or two showing the damage would be nice. Stick the on photobucket or similar and put the links in your craigslist ad so you don't restrict yourself to the microscopic photos that you normally get on there. As to payment, I'd either take cash, meet the buyer at his bank where he draws out a cashiers check in front of your eyes, or, well, cash. No Kauri shells, deeds on bridges in Brooklyn or anything else. Be prepared to take a deposit - a lot of buyers aren't willing to wander around with ten large ones in the back pocket to go look at a car - and spell out exactly how long the deposit is good for. I also tend to make them non-refundable (buyer doesn't pick up the car within the negotiated timeframe, you keep the deposit as 'damages' for not being able to sell it to another cash buyer). Check your DMV's website as to what exactly you need to do once you sold the car. Here in Nevada it's the buyer's problem on how to move it as you keep the plates, but I know in California the regular plates (not personal ones IIRC) stay with the vehicle and I think you need to inform the DMV that you sold the vehicle. I'd also keep a record of who I sold a vehicle to (name, address from his drivers license, license number etc) just in case they run a few red lights and accumulate a few grands' worth of parking tickets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "438bad75d87d85c9b5fcb2144e7da298",
"text": "Ideally you would negotiate a car price without ever mentioning: And other factors that affect the price. You and the dealer would then negotiate a true price for the car, followed by the application of rebates, followed by negotiating for the loan if there is to be one. In practice this rarely happens. The sales rep asks point blank what rebates you qualify for (by asking get-to-know-you questions like where you work or if you served in the armed forces - you may not realize that these are do-you-qualify-for-a-rebate questions) before you've even chosen a model. They take that into account right from the beginning, along with whether they'll make a profit lending you money, or have to spend something to subsidize your zero percent loan. However unlike your veteran's status, your loan intentions are changeable. So when you get to the end you can ask if the price could be improved by paying cash. Or you could try putting the negotiated price on a credit card, and when they don't like that, ask for a further discount to stop you from using the credit card and paying cash.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
87f0d5ca2bc03d05219811e984f7112b
|
What's a good free checking account?
|
[
{
"docid": "f776b37b0daea040b62129b4e72351e8",
"text": "The best bank with least amount of gotchas is Alliant Credit Union. I did a lot of research and finally decided on this bank. I did a comparative study between ING, Ally and Alliant and found Alliant to be superior than the the other two. More about my study: http://www.moneycone.com/a-bank-thats-better-than-ally-and-ingdirect/ If you do find a better bank than this, please update this post, I'd definitely like to know! Disclaimer: I have no relationship with either of the three banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4201f0db350d44ceacf0e9361bc26368",
"text": "Check with a small local bank or credit union, they might offer better terms. That said, my local credit union still charges $6/month for a checking account if you don't have a direct deposit into it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d797e0c5aeb688f536cd46d2b3308dd",
"text": "\"Here's a hack for getting the \"\"free\"\" checking that requires direct deposit. Some effort to set up, but once everything is in place, it's all autopilot. (If your transfer into savings is higher than your transfer out of savings, you'll build up a nice little stash over time.) I don't know if there are deposit amounts or frequencies that you must have to qualify for the free account, if these are public or secret, or if this works everywhere. If anyone else has experience using this kind of hack, please leave a comment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f037e925896d678b10bbe59832cb7e56",
"text": "\"If you want to deposit checks or conduct business at a window, you should look at a local savings bank or credit union. Generally, you can find one that will offer \"\"free\"\" checking in exchange for direct deposit or a minimum balance. Some are totally free, but those banks pay zippo for interest. If you don't care about location, I would look at Charles Schwab Bank. I've been using them for a couple of years and have been really satisfied with them. They provide free checking, ATM fee reimbursement, free checks and pre-paid deposit envelopes. You also can easily move money between Schwab brokerage or savings accounts. Other brokers offer similar services as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dc7abd96a4232b1049975ebf8aa602f",
"text": "Capital One 360. No minimums balance, no fees. Everything's online. Make deposits using an app or an image of the check. ATMs are free almost everywhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ffed1ba7c7a5456be4234ae36bda59c",
"text": "Online banks are the future. As long as you don't need a clerk to talk to (and why would you need?) there's nothing you can't do with an online bank that you can with a brick and mortar robbers. I use E*Trade trading account as a checking account (it allows writing paper checks, debit card transactions, ACH in/out, free ATM, etc). If you don't need paper checks that often you can use ING or something similar. You can always go to a local credit union, but those will wave the fee in exchange for direct deposit or high balance, and that you can also get from the large banks as well, so no much difference there. Oh where where did Washington Mutual go....",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "853f1ab64894dc0649111e6afc7bcd20",
"text": "\"There is no free lunch. \"\"Free\"\" can cost you a small fortune over time. If you wish to sit through a free pitch you may as well go to a time share seminar. Just keep your hands in your pocket and don't sign anything. In the end, you will be best served spending the time it will take to learn to manage your own money. Short term, spend a few hundred dollars and find a fee only planner who will give you general advice. My disdain for the \"\"bank guy\"\" goes back to an overheard conversation. An older woman, in her 70s was asking about investing in T-bills vs the bank CD. T-bills were a bit higher yield at the time. The banker stated that the CD was FDIC insured,but T-bills were not. This was decades ago, but I remember it as if it were yesterday.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f29a91f8306aa4d1ac166445ac5fc43",
"text": "\"I think that your best option is to use the internet to look for sites comparing the various features of accounts, and especially forums that are more focused on discussion as you can ask about specific banks and people who have those accounts can answer. \"\"Requests for specific service provider recommendations\"\" are off-topic here, so I won't go into making any of my own bank recommendations, but there are many blogs and forums out there focusing on personal finance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "188502c8878306a1a913ada819b89d34",
"text": "Sorry, in the US (Bank of America). The kind of account we have has that high fee, but they also have free account options that have lower or zero balance requirements, you just have to setup direct deposit. The one we have has free checks, free safe deposit box, an English speaking customer service rep guaranteed to answer my call in something like 3 rings, and a bunch of other stuff I'll never use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2865107e261613e3cc2c935b5a67bace",
"text": "\"These good rates all tend to be \"\"on up to $X\"\" where X is some low'ish number that could require multiple accounts. They often also come with other strings, like set up automatic deposits/withdrawals, and use debit card at least 15 times per month. The two you mention have these flaws, whether or not it's worth it depends on if you are happy to meet those requirements and how big your emergency fund is. Personally, I'd rather get rewards on a credit card than use a debit card, and I don't want to open a bunch of accounts, so I have a boring savings account with a pretty low interest rate for my emergency fund. It's liquid, earns some interest, and I don't have to think about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaaa8fcea2cbfa583bb92f4848b54efa",
"text": "I would strongly suggest you select an answer: all the above two cover everything I can possibly recommend, but perhaps my perspective as a person who was exactly in your shoes a year ago might appeal to you more. My first bank was Chase, and they usually give out a free checking account to students that come with leaves of 100 checks. Unfortunately, I was 24 at that time, and the max possible age to qualify was 23 or 21. Paying $25 for any number of checks was a big deal for me as I had no job, and transportation and rent was costing me $1k/month anyways. I came here and asked questions: lots of them. MrChrister, God bless his soul, recommended credit unions to me. I never knew they existed. A year later, I am a proud member of 3 CUs: I recommend Alliant, DCU and SchoolsFirst: I am their member and very proud of it!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4eaf0ece65e124c8ee239f8b0f7821d9",
"text": "I've seen credit cards that provide you your credit score for free, updated once a month and even charted over the last year. Unfortunately the bank I used to have this card with was bought and the purchasing bank discontinued the feature. Perhaps someone out there knows of some cards that still offer a feature like this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e3516519bc1be02dd6e3238df4960f9",
"text": "Ally Bank is a good online only account. They reimburse any ATM Fees you may occur. I have both checking and savings, with both Ally and ING Direct. I don't know about having 25 total accounts - seems like overkill to me. I do something similar though - I get direct deposit into one account, then transfer the average bill amount each pay to a different account that I never touch other than for the allotted bills. It works well, especially for Utilities that are inflated seasonally. What do you use to mange the 25 accounts? I use Quicken, but I don't have 25 accounts...yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe8cec63df9636d261bc60e06280cf6d",
"text": "This only indirectly answer your question, but Schwab investor checking account has no fee, no minimum balance, and will reimburse all ATM fee (inside and outside the US)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37e38b00009688a5f953c84a8685cce1",
"text": "My wife and I have two Schwab brokerage accounts, one for retirement and one for non-retirement investments. The latter also has a checking/savings account which we use as our main account. Schwab is very happy with us, as we are cheapskates and save a lot of money. The checking account, which seems to act like any ordinary checking account, gives us all the things listed above. They pay the ATM fees, which is not a lot of money, but seems like a nice thing to me. We can also do cash deposits and we can go to any Schwab branch to talk to someone face to face. We've only had to do the latter once in 10 or so years, and the former maybe once or twice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a8a67ea7ce494e435405a0f4a50e3b6",
"text": "Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93c96645f913850d5a0ff9df12226fe4",
"text": "She needs to get a bank account at literally any other bank or credit union. I have not paid for a checking account ever, any bank that tries to is ripping you off. Personally I've used ING Direct/Capital One 360 for years without any problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66a1f33edc8c08ddea2dc3d497857005",
"text": "And I'm mad that everyone's mad. STOP BEING MAD D: But seriously, chill out u/3th0s. There are legitimate reasons to keep money in your checking account and it is not a moronic move. A more moronic move would be to have no money available on hand in the event of an emergency, like if your own a house and your boiler breaks or if you get in an accident and have to shell out money for medical bills or if you want to save up so you can pay your larger loans off in full so you don't accrue interest on them (e.g. college loans).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "394bb6647586be1013b72bbe7b8f1858",
"text": "Wells Fargo. They have an account called PMA, an umbrella account for checking, savings, mortgage, and brokerage accounts. It would cost $30/month, but I never had to pay because I have a rollover retirement account that is enough to waive the fees. They count all accounts, including mortgage, which I used to have. Oh, and no restrictions. An added advantage is there are no fees for any of the accounts, nor for some other things, like bank checks, outside ATM fees, etc. I'm in California, so I don't know if the same deal exists in other states. But if you qualify for the free account, it's pretty good. Actually, most of my investments are Vanguard funds. And I have another rollover account with Vanguard, and never pay fees, but I only buy or sell from one Vanguard fund to another, and rarely since I have targeted retirement funds that are designed to be no maintenance. For some reason, I trust Vanguard more than most other funds; maybe because I like their philosophy on low-cost funds, which they started but are now getting more popular.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d7f2372eac414d801f4c68ed0695462",
"text": "(Six years later...) I've used CheckFree for over 20 years, and my uncle started using it back in the early 1980s through a 300 baud modem. It has e-bills, EDI bills that you schedule yourself, and will also mail checks to people and small businesses. You can make your payments from an unlimited number of banks, can schedule multiple recurring payments for the same bill (I find that useful for when buying large/expensive items by CC: I create a different payment schedule for each), plus ad hoc payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fe18d8b664294e35f4ba7aec9d1e9be",
"text": "\"I've looked around for a while and found one at Broadway Federal Bank. I opened one up last year and will most likely be renewing it if the rates stay fairly competitive. Here are the features: I think it's a great alternative to a savings account because the ability to withdraw at any time defeats the purpose of \"\"saving\"\". By getting penalized to withdraw with this CD, you are discouraged from withdrawing and hence, actually save. The biggest downside is that they are a fairly small community bank and only have branches in Los Angeles. They also only have three branches in total and do not have ATM's that you can make deposits into aside from the ones outside of their branches.However, you can open an account online and and make electronic deposits. Hope this helps.I included their website below. www.broadwayfederalbank.com\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
826d1f96cf7b5e638a7a7d0e58b7bdc7
|
Does my net paycheck decrease as the year goes on due to tax brackets filling up?
|
[
{
"docid": "7d23aa8b3c8e5452c14ca9f7b33ec803",
"text": "Most countries with income tax, including the USA, design their withholding system so that in straightforward cases, tax is withheld from each month's paycheck on an annualized basis: tax for a month is calculated on the assumption that you will keep earning the same monthly amount for the rest of the year, and the withholding is set so that the tax is spread evenly across the year. Another way of putting that is that in practice you only get the tax brackets allocated proportionately throughout the year - so up till the end of August you'll only have been assigned 8/12 of the $37450 bracket, and so on. So if your income doesn't change and your general tax affairs don't change, your paycheck also shouldn't change. If your income is irregular or changes during the year then things can get more complicated. As other answers have noted, withholdings are calculated according to tables that normally just take into account that specific month's income. There are various possible changes to your tax affairs that might cause the withholdings to change. For example there'd be an impact from any change in your contributions to tax advantaged things like health insurance or retirement, health or education savings. You might also use form W-4 to change your withholdings yourself. Note that even with a regular income that doesn't change through the year, you might find yourself either owing money or being owed a refund when you file your taxes after the end of the year. It's worth making sure that your W-4 accurately records the allowances you are entitled to, to minimize or eliminate this adjustment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba49380c7cb92763be0fb9cf59939d5b",
"text": "If your payroll payments are the same each period, you will generally have the same net pay per period. Some things that can cause variations: If your employer puts special payments in a specific paycheck (such as a quarterly or annual bonus, or a vacation payout) this can increase the percentage held from that specific paycheck. The IRS publishes lookup tables, and your payroll system should withhold the amount in the lookup table. If you get a raise midyear, your new payroll withholding rate may increase based on the gross pay amount. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80dade3f36a370d1af885e3af8e01083",
"text": "\"H.R. basically consults Publication 15 (this is the link to 2015) to determine how much to hold, based on filing status, exemptions, and pay amount. What's described here is a form of estimation, or, in other words, H.R. withholds what would be your actual taxes, dividing across the number of paychecks you receive. Assuming your gross pay and exemptions do not change, this usually results in a zero-sum for taxes owed (you will receive nothing, and owe nothing). As you can see from the charts, the year is basically broken down into equal tax units that reflect how much you would owe if you worked at that bracket all year. This estimation works best when you have steady hours from check to check. In other words, your taxes are based on the estimate of what you'd make if you earned that much all year, scaled down to the time frame (e.g. 1/52 if you are paid weekly, or 1/26 if you paid biweekly). They do not go \"\"up\"\" near the end of the year, because they're estimated in advance. You don't move up a tax bracket, but are instead taxed at a particular bracket every paycheck. There's also other forms of estimation mentioned there, but basically follow the same scheme. Note that all estimation forms are just that-- estimates. It's best to use a calculator and compare your current taxes whenever a significant change occurs-- a raise, a new child, getting married or divorced, etc. You'll want to be able to alter your exemptions so that enough taxes are coming out. That's also the reason for the \"\"withhold extra\"\" box, so that you can avoid owing. For example, if you're making $44 a week for the first 26 weeks, and then you make $764 a week for the second 26 weeks of the year, you'll end up with an actual tax liability of $2,576.6, but end up paying only $2,345.20. You would owe $231.40. Of course, the actual math is a lot more complicated if you're an employee paid by the minute, for example, or you have a child, go to college, etc. Paychecks that vary wildly, like $10,000 one week and $2,000 the next tend to have the hardest-to-predict estimates (e.g. jobs with big commission payouts). You should avoid living check-to-check with jobs that pay this way, because you'll probably end up owing taxes. Conversely, if you've done your estimates right and you're paid salary or exactly the same number of hours every week, you'll find that the taxes are much easier to predict and you can usually easily create a refund situation simply by having the correct exemptions on your check. So, in summation, if your check falls in the 25% category (which is, of course, 25% above the tax bracket break point), you're already paying the correct amount, and no further drop in your check would be expected.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "facce3760db07e461a277243260be072",
"text": "It seems that you are misunderstanding how your taxes are calculated. You seem to be under the impression that once you pass $37,450 annual income, ALL of your income will be taxed at 25%. However, in reality, only the income you earn above that amount will be taxed at 25%. You can use this chart to determine exactly how much federal tax you will pay; As you can see, if you earned, $37,500 in a year, you would only be charged 25% taxes on $50 (and you will pay 15% on the amount between $9226 and $37450, and 10% on the amount from $0 to $9225, which is $5126.25 when summed together).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f2932ae0c7889344e384a306dbe8ebf",
"text": "In general no, if you just have one employer and work there with the same salary for the whole year. Typically an employer does tax withholding by extrapolating your monthly income to the entire year and withholding the right amount so that at the end, what is withheld is what you owe. It's not a surprise to them when your income crosses a tax bracket threshold, because they knew how much they were paying you and knew when you would cross into another bracket, so they factored that in. If you have multiple jobs or only worked for part of the year, or if your income varied from month to month (e.g., you got a raise) there could be a discrepancy between what is withheld and what you owe, because each employer only knows about what it's paying you, not what money you may have earned from other sources. (Even here, though, the discrepancy wouldn't be due to the tax brackets per se.) You can adjust your withholdings on form W-4 if needed, to tell the employer to withhold more or less than they otherwise would.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40ebac97f85a89e5bf731d77534666e3",
"text": "No, you will (generally speaking) not see a decrease in your net earnings from crossing a tax bracket: This means that your highest marginal rate (the top bracket you fall into) only applies to the portion of your income that is in that bracket, not your total income. This helps ensure that your total tax burden does not increase measurably from crossing a tax bracket. Be aware that you can still see measurable changes in your total taxes due if increases in income make you no longer eligible for certain deductions and/or benefits that were otherwise reducing your tax burden, but this is not the same as how changes in your highest marginal rate affect your overall average tax rate. Note that when you see a rate table such as the one on efile.com's federal income tax rates page or on Wikipedia's Income tax in the United States page, the rates listed are for each segment of income, not for your overall income: In other words the 15% rate below (for 2014, filing single) only applies to the portion of your income falling between the listed numbers, not to income below it or above it: that would be calculated under the respective rates given. You can use the i1040tt tax tables to gain a sense of how this works in practice: (The linked resource is for 2014 taxes) The threshold in 2014 for the 25% rate vs 15% was $36,900. Using the linked table, if you were single and made between 36,850 and 36,900 in gross income, your tax liability before other considerations was $5,078. If you made between 36,900 and 36,950, your base tax liability was $5,088.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bb48e87e7034e32ed671b8aefec93488",
"text": "The taxes that are deducted from you paycheck are estimated from the expected annual income you receive from the employer. In the same way, the employer will deduct from that expected annual income the tax deductions you would get for the number of dependents you specify. Hence your net income will be lower, your annual tax obligation also, which can than be calculated down to the period of your paycheck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "484ba9dcfc97d92782ff077f49821d12",
"text": "\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \"\"Percentage Method\"\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \"\"base amount\"\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \"\"base amount\"\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \"\"effective\"\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \"\"wage base\"\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \"\"marriage advantage\"\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \"\"pre-tax deduction\"\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cba67a2629abaf836aa530c486cc7fd",
"text": "Timing differences would still all come out in the wash. Might reduce it one year but over a few years it's essentially the same. It's becoming harder to create situations where big timing differences can apply. And generally (although not in every case) companies are seeing the bad press associated with not paying taxes and are being relatively less aggressive than in the past. There's a lot too it but I get annoyed by people saying companies only make donations to avoid tax. I've posted on it before and it's a silly view.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81ab7c9d49e66e287f971b92d3c14a58",
"text": "?? Edit: that's what I thought. Unless there is some specific tax code that I don't know about, there's no way to pass through money to the next year. But if someone on Reddit is saying something and quoting a tax law, I'd at least like to see it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccaf68ba7bb7c914b03d1c4fe2fa4897",
"text": "Tax brackets refer to the range of taxable within which you fall. An income tax bracket usually refers to federal or state tax, not the combined rate. I have put here the tax brackets for 2016 for IRS and State of California. https://www.irs.com/articles/2016-federal-tax-rates-personal-exemptions-and-standard-deductions https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2016-california-tax-rates-and-exemptions.shtml According to those, a taxable income of 100,000USD would fall in the 28% bracket for the IRS and 9.30% for State of California. The combined rate is therefore 37.3%. However, this does not mean you would pay 37,300USD. First of all, your applicable tax rate applies only for each dollar in your tax bracket (e.g. 28% * 8,849USD for IRS). Therefore, to calculate your combined taxes you would need to do: Therefore, your effective tax rate would be much lower than the combined tax rate of 37.3%. Now do note that this is an example to illustrate tax brackets and is nowhere near the amount of taxes you would be required to pay because of various credits and deductions that you would be able to benefit from. Edit: As suggested in the comments, a note on marginal tax rate (referred to here as combined tax rate). This is the rate of taxes paid on an additional dollar of income. Here, every additional dollar of income would be taxed at 37.3%, leaving you with 62.7 cents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f0b2c79bb09d455414ec58c07ec0f51",
"text": "\"Yes, it is, but first let me address this sentence: my current withholding on my W4 is already at 0 so I can't make it lower You definitely can make it lower. On W4, in addition to the allowances (that what you meant by \"\"already at 0\"\"), there's also a line called \"\"additional withholding\"\". There, you put the dollar amount that you want your payroll to withhold from your paycheck each pay period. So the easiest way to \"\"send\"\" a one time payment to the IRS, if you're a W2 employee, would be to adjust that line with the amount you want to send, and change it back to 0 next pay period. You can also send a check directly to the IRS - follow the instructions to form 1040-ES. That is exactly what that form is designed to be used for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4867627f8a0ac6019c5a4cb6e87e0422",
"text": "Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b31501ec5e4f4ddfb32b97946a168940",
"text": "No. In a marginal tax system, only additional dollars that push you into a higher bracket are taxed at that higher rate. If you would pay 15% on $73800, then when you earn over $73800, you will still only pay 15% of the $73800, plus 25% of the extra amount over $73800. As far as a marginal income tax affects things, you cannot decrease your net income by increasing your salary. (There can be other potential reasons to keep your income down besides income taxes, as asked in this question, but as the answer there suggests, these often aren't great reasons either.) As far as I know, every income tax system that has differing tax rates works this way. That is, I'm not aware of any country with an income tax system where you can decrease your net earnings by moving into a higher bracket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec9e92e8583f6e3fb635b2d9b7fe7e8e",
"text": "\"I had been pondering this recently myself too. This question motivated me to do a little research. It appears that what happens is that (take a deep breath) the capital gain does push you into the next tax bracket, but the capital gain is always interpreted as the \"\"last\"\" income you received, so that if your non-capital-gains income is less than the threshold, it will all be taxed in the lower bracket, and only your capital gain will be taxed in the higher bracket (but it will be taxed at the capital-gains rate of that higher bracket). In short, a capital gain can only push capital gains into higher capital-gains tax brackets; it cannot push ordinary income into higher ordinary-income tax brackets. In addition, the amount of the capital gain is taxed in a marginal fashion, such that any portion of the gain that will \"\"fit\"\" into a lower bracket will be taxed at a lower level, with only the topmost portion of any gain being taxed at the top rate. This site is one claiming this: Will capital gain or dividend income push my other income into a higher tax bracket? No, the tax rates apply first to your “ordinary income” (income from sources other than long-term capital gains or qualifying dividends) so these items that are taxed at special rates won’t push your other income into a higher tax bracket. If my ordinary income puts me in the 15% tax bracket, can I receive an unlimited amount of long-term capital gain at the 0% rate? No, the 0% rate applies only to the amount of long-term capital gain and dividend income needed to “fill up” the 15% tax bracket. For example, if your ordinary income is $4,000 below the figure that would put you in the 25% bracket and you have a $10,000 long-term capital gain, you’ll pay 0% on $4,000 of your capital gain and 15% on the rest. There are several Bogleheads forum threads (here, here, here and here) that also touch on the same issue. The last of those links to the IRS capital gains worksheet. I traced through the logic and I believe it confirms this. Here's how it works: (In conclusion, we now know Mitt Romney's secret.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27e0430f759036c11f1f3a188d4dbd52",
"text": "\"This would never apply for tax \"\"brackets\"\". It's not as though making an extra dollar will put you into an entire separate bracket, the IRS isn't that bad. They bump up the \"\"brackets\"\" every $50, so you will never turn down a raise because it would cause you to lose income. However if your raise would preclude you from contributing to your IRA because it pushes you over $110,000 then yes, you could turn it down or explain to your boss that it would need to be just a little bit higher to cover your IRA contribution loss.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66411ed6872cf336df370d0115b72910",
"text": "You have interpreted the instructions correctly. The issue with two jobs at the same time, is that that second job will be taxed at the highest rate; but the second employer has no idea what the other position is paying you. If you make enough to be in the 15% tax bracket for your main job that means: some of the money from each paycheck is taxed zero; some is taxed at 10% and the last dollars are taxed at 15%. But the second job should withhold for taxes to cover all the income at 15%. To avoid problems you should look at the tax form you are filling out this year. Look at the total tax you paid. Not the refund or the amount you owed when you filed but your total tax paid. The government allows a safe harbor if you make sure that in 2016 you have the same amount withheld this calendar year. If that isn't enough, you will owe money in April 2017, but you will not have to pay a penalty. After you have a couple of paycheck from your main employer, check to see that if you work the rest of the year at that same rate that the federal withholding will make the safe harbor. If you will make it, you don't have to worry about the penalty. If you will fall short, adjust the w-4 accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "326441a0a81ba1ba71dfc6fde4bb36b5",
"text": "No, absolutely not. Income tax rates are marginal. The tax bracket's higher tax rate only applies to extra dollars over the threshold, not to dollars below it. The normal income tax does not have any cliffs where one extra dollar of income will cost more than one dollar in extra taxes. Moreover, you are ignoring the personal exemption and standard deduction. A gross salary of $72,000 is not the same as taxable income of $72,000. The deduction will generally be $12,200 and the exemptions will be $3,900 for you, your spouse, and any kids. So married-filing-jointly with the standard deduction will get an automatic $20,000 off of adjusted gross income when counting taxable income. So the appropriate taxable income is actually going to be more like $52,000. Note that getting your compensation package reshuffled may result in different tax treatment. But simply taking a smaller salary (rather than taking some compensation as stock options, health insurance, or fringe benefits), is not a money-saving move. Never do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09eda7b24f83e3989de913f530f95515",
"text": "\"You don't offer any specifics, so I'm guessing a little about what you're talking about, but here's a few thoughts: Remember that all tax-related transactions are reconciled when you file. All of your activity for the year is totaled up and (for the most part) when during the year things happen is irrelevant. Your gross taxable income is calculated (which will exclude any \"\"pre-tax\"\" activity, deduction applied (which will any include and \"\"post-tax\"\" deductions), tax liability calculated, and withholdings subtracted to get your net tax due. Whether you have \"\"pre-tax\"\" activity and less tax withheld or \"\"after-tax\"\" activity with a deduction and reduce your net tax, the net effect should be the same.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fd2ad44cbc3d7ab266cb6c398e30f1e",
"text": "Their reputation is still stellar, just because people we're dumb enough to buy in at 38$ doesn't reflect on facebook, it reflects on the underwriters. You think FB would have said no with the IPO price had been 100$?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bea9ae4ec1480817454bb904a92aff5",
"text": "No evidence of 'elite prep school' so far based on my google search. Princeton and Goldman Sachs take a ton of normal people (extremely hardworking and clever of course but it's not about coming from the right family). It's not Morgan Stanley",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
add2b20ee5a8ed1f2091b198b6920e69
|
Can I open a Solo 401(k) if I am an independent contractor but also work part-time as an employee?
|
[
{
"docid": "2f8831114d27c3a782bad112fe6c3263",
"text": "If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "deac70a7a01862c8cbe9d9f23205f685",
"text": "A Solo 401k plan requires self-employment income; you cannot put wages into it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "351446dcbdc3994c898077f317fdcd20",
"text": "I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fa9290fe5300a24c04c6f8ab01f18f66",
"text": "Sounds you need to read up on S corp structures. I think this would benefit you if you generate income even after you physically stopped working which is incomes from membership fees, royalties % of customer revenue, middle man etc... Under the Scorp, you as the sole member must earn a wage that fair and at current market value. You pay social security and Medicare on this wage. The interesting thing here is that an Scorp can pay out earning dividends without having to pay payroll taxes but the catch is that you, as the sole employee must earn a fair wage. As for paying the other member you may want to look into 1099 contract work plus a finders fee. The 1099 hourly wage does not require you to pay Medicare and SS. The common fee I'm used to is 5% of gross invoice. Then you would pay her an hourly wage. The company then bills these hours multiplied by 2 or 3 (or whatever you think is fair) to the client. Deduct expenses from this and that's your profit. Example. Contractor brings Client A which is estimated as a 100 hour project with $100 cost in supplies and requires 2 hours of your time @ $40/hr. You quote 100 hours @ $50 to client, client agrees and gives you down payment. You then present the contract work to your contractor, they complete the work in 100 hours and bill you at $25. You pay your contractor 2500 plus the 5% ($250) and your company earns $2070 (5000 - 2500 - 100-80) And you'll earn $80 minus the payroll tax. Then at the end of the quarter or year or however you want to do earning payouts your LLC- Scorp will write you a check for $2070 or whatever earning % you want to take. This is then taxed at your income tax bracket. One thing to keep in mind is what is preventing this other person from becoming your competition? A partnership would be great motivation to try and bring in as much work under the LLC. But if you start shafting people then they'll just keep the work and cut you out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "592ca1bb4e832e15848560bb6e21fbea",
"text": "\"Whether you can establish an HSA has nothing to do with your employment status or your retirement plan. It has to do with the type of medical insurance you have. The insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is \"\"HSA compatible\"\". To be HSA compatible, a plan must have a \"\"high deductible\"\" -- in 2014, $1250 for an individual plan or $2500 for a family plan. It must not cover any expenses before the deductible, that is, you cannot have any \"\"first dollar\"\" coverage for doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc. (There are some exceptions for services considered \"\"preventive care\"\".) There are also limits on the out-of-pocket max. I think that's it, but the insurance company should know if their plans qualify or not. If you have a plan that is HSA compatible, but also have another plan that is not HSA compatible, then you don't qualify. And all that said ... If you are covered under your husband's medical insurance, and your husband already has an HSA, why do you want to open a second one? There's no gain. There is a family limit on contributions to an HSA -- $6,550 in 2014. You don't get double the limit by each opening your own HSA. If you have two HSA's, the combined total of your contributions to both accounts must be within the limit. If you have some administrative reason for wanting to keep separate accounts, yes, you can open your own, and in that case, you and your husband are each allowed to contribute half the limit, or you can agree to some other division. I suppose you might want to have an account in your own name so that you control it, especially if you and your husband have different ideas about managing finances. (Though how to resolve such problems would be an entirely different question. Personally, I don't think the solution is to get into power struggles over who controls what, but whatever.) Maybe there's some advantage to having assets in your own name if you and your husband were to divorce. (Probably not, though. I think a divorce court pretty much ignores whose name assets are in when dividing up property.) See IRS publication 969, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/index.html for lots and lots of details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "691ebc769be4882276be7460d9e1cd52",
"text": "Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "175c2b5e3b93c09019d2e8d5c996204d",
"text": "\"There are two types of 401(k) contributions: \"\"elective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the employee and \"\"nonelective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the company. Elective contributions are summed across all the plans she is contributing to. So she can contribute $18,000 minus whatever she put in her 403(b). Additionally she can contribute 20% of the net profit of the company (before the elective contributions) as nonelective contributions (these contributions must be designated as such). You will notice that the IRS document says 25%, but that's what you can do if her business is incorporated. For a sole proprietorship, nonelective contributions ends up being limited at 20% of profit. Additionally, the sum of these two and her contribution to her 403(b) cannot exceed $53,000. Example: line 31 of her schedule C is $30,000 and she has contributed $10,000 to her 403(b). Maximum contribution to her solo 401(k) is ($18,000 - $10,000) + 0.2 * $30,000 = $14,000 Her total contributions for the year are $10,000 from her 403(b) plus $14,000 in her solo 401(k). This is less than $53,000 so this limit does not bind. If she made a ton of 1099 money, her contribution maximum would follow the above until it hit $53,000 and then it would stop there. The IRS describes this in detail in Publication 560, which also has a worksheet for figuring out your maximum explicitly. It's unpleasant reading and the worksheets are painful, but if you do it right, it will end up being as I just described it. Using the language of that publication, hers is a \"\"qualified plan\"\" of the \"\"defined contribution\"\" variety.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de995a46c0bcc6bbe0657fa820a0816b",
"text": "With this level of income, you might consider a Solo 401(k). It would allow you a much higher level of contributions and is more appropriate for your savings than the limited IRA deposits. It also offers a considerable number of options not available for IRAs. A loan for example.",
"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": "2f73b8c3e0267ea9622297f99ddc58d4",
"text": "If you plan to continue contributing to a 401(k) and are no longer self-employed, then you need to start a new 401(k) at your new business. You can't contribute to the old one any more. About the money in the old one, you have a few options. If both 401(k) plans have good investment options and low fees, then there's little reason to think one of these strategies is better than the other. If, like me, at least one of your 401(k) providers has very few available funds and those funds have high expense ratios, then it's a good idea to move your money where the investments are best. As a rule, IRA's are better than 401(k) plans because most IRA's will allow you to invest in practically anything you want while most 401(k) plans only allow you to invest in the funds that have taken your company's HR people to the best lobster dinners or went to the same school as them. Most organizations do an absolutely horrible job at selecting a reasonable set of funds because the decision-makers generally have no finance background and no incentive to do a good job. For that reason I like IRA's. Of course, some solo 401(k) plans are also very good so just leaving it where it is may be best for you. This has the added advantage of being ready to go if you end up self-employed again at some point.",
"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": "6717866315a55e750928ea6245ad3f8b",
"text": "I don't quite understand your thought process here. First, in a tax-advantaged retirement account you are NOT allowed to engage in a transaction with yourself. If you just want to run a business and be able to write off expenses, how is using the self-directed IRA relevant? You can either buy the condo using your tax-advantaged account and rent it out to regular tenants. Or you buy the condo yourself using your own money and then operate your business so you can deduct business expenses from doing so. 401k's allow you to take a loan out of it, so you can look into that as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c86927a383eb005d90ee36730dcda654",
"text": "You setup a self-directed solo 401k by paying a one time fee for a company to setup a trust, name you the sole trustee, and file it with the IRS. None of these companies offer TPA because it opens them up to profit leaching liability. After you have your trust setup, you can open a brokerage account or several with any of the big names you want (Vanguard, Fidelity, Ameritrade, etc), or just use the money to flip houses, do P2P lending, whatever, the world is your investment oyster. If the company has recurring fees you need to ask what is going on because if they aren't offering TPA services, then what the heck could they be charging you for? I did see one company, I think it was IRA Financial Group, that had the option of having a CPA do TPA for you for a recurring fee, but I would pass on that. The IRS administration requirements are typically just the 5500-EZ that you have to file as a hard copy by July 31 if your investments are worth more than $250k, on December 31. Yes, you have to get the actual form from the IRS, write on it with a pen and mail it to them every year, barbaric. You can either have your accountant do it or do it yourself. If you're below $250k just google solo 401k rule change two or three times a year and don't try to launder money. If anything, the rules will loosen with time, I don't imagine the Republican Congress cracking down on small business owners any time soon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d66d0b01848a465509e0c72e6739c3a7",
"text": "I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a8096fb4a4696fa026ea16948b8af0f",
"text": "Source Sole trader If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a self-employed sole trader - even if you’ve not yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As a sole trader, you run your own business as an individual. You can keep all your business’s profits after you’ve paid tax on them. You can employ staff. ‘Sole trader’ means you’re responsible for the business, not that you have to work alone.You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. Tax responsibilities You must: You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. This is one condition which you would need to have a look. If you do some shoddy work and your client wants to recover the losses they can come after your personal money or property. LLPs have the same probelm too. And you pay NI and income tax on all of your profits. If you have a partner then both can take out the profits of a limited company, if both are directors. The tax hit will be less as compared to a single person.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f8c5f28061ad8e75404c5fcc51dbaf",
"text": "Fidelity Investments offers Solo 401(k) plans without any management fees. The plan administrator is typically the employer itself (so, your business, or you as the principal manager). You (as the individual employee) are the participant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f638f00320e4f3c87d0d7ce7e6951429",
"text": "\"Yes, it can be done. See \"\"Scenario 4\"\" at Isolating 401(k) basis - Fairmark.com. Though that article is primarily about getting after-tax 401(k) money into a Roth IRA, Scenario 4 applies to the scenario you are asking about. At a high level you do exactly what you say -- transfer the pre-tax money from your trad IRAs to a 401(k) (btw, a solo 401(k) will work for this also -- doesn't have to be your employer's -- but then you need to be eligible to set up a solo 401(k)). This is allowed because qualified plans can't accept after after-tax traditional IRA money, so the transfer overrides the usual pro rata rules and \"\"strains\"\" the basis out and leaves it in the trad IRA. However, there's a mismatch between the intent of Congress (as indicated by the Joint Committee on Taxation report on the law) and the actual text of the law as detailed in the Fairmark article which while it doesn't stop you from doing this adds a couple of hoops to jump through if you want to be in total compliance with the law.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c13247d22b07329cfee1a80df0f5e770",
"text": "OK, so first of all, employers don't set up IRAs. IRA stands for Individual Retirement Account. You can set up a personal IRA for yourself, but not for employees. If that is what you're after, then just set one up for yourself - no special rules there for self employment. As far as setting up a 401(k), I'd suggest checking with benefits management companies. If you're small, you probably don't have an HR department, so managing a 401(k) yourself would likely be overly burdensome. Outsourcing this to a company which handles HR for you (maybe running payroll, etc. also), would be the best option. Barring that, I'd try calling a large financial institution (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) for clear guidance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a74193012c48c21d399a3306d809d658
|
Can a company donate to a non-profit to pay for services arranged for before hand?
|
[
{
"docid": "c6d279fcc0efcb58c986d4ec89ff6752",
"text": "Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "577e71f18a181d82dd8514aef826d53e",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"donate\"\", it usually assumes charitable donation with, in this context, tax benefit. That is not what happens in your scenario. Giving someone money with the requirement of that someone to spend that money at your shop is not donation. It is a grant. You can do that, but you won't be able to deduct this as charitable donation, but the money paid to you back would be taxable income to you. I respectfully disagree with Joe that its a wash. It is not. You give them money that you cannot deduct as an expense (as it is not business expense) or donation (as strings are attached). But you do give them the money, it is no longer yours. When they use the money to pay you back - that same money becomes your taxable income. End result: you provide service, and you're the one paying (taxes) for it. Why would you do that?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1e9de6bde558a7a9c306e7bb433c5b2",
"text": "\"Can a company say \"\"StackExchange\"\" donate to a non-profit company say $5,000 in agreement that they will spend that on paying a designer for a new website? And most importantly is this donation still tax deductible? A non-profit would have to typically create a bucket for IT Services or Website design. As long as \"\"StackExchange\"\" specify they employ a profession service to get it done, there would be no issue. If \"\"StackExchange\"\" were to specify an individula/company it would be an issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61c62156ed9656c4e8c2a794bfa0102",
"text": "People put conditions on donations all the time. They donate to the Red Cross for a specific disaster. The donate money to a church for the building fund. They donate money to a hospital to buy a new x-ray machine. They donate money to the scouts for a new dining hall. It is possible to donate money to a non-profit for a specific purpose. If the non-profit doesn't want to accept the money with those strings they can refuse. Generally these specific projects are initiated by the non-profit. But there is no requirement that the idea originate with the non-profit. It is also up to the non-profit and their legal advisers regarding how strictly they view those strings. If you donate money for web design and they don't spend it all, can they pay net years hosting bill with the money, or must they hold it for a few years for when they need a designer again? If the company wants to provide the service, they can structure the project to pay their employees for their time. They pay employees for $100 of labor while deigning the website. The pay and benefits reduce profit thus lowering taxes. Donating money to the non-profit to be given back to the company doesn't seem to be the best way to structure transaction. At best it is a wash. Donating money to a charity and then directing exactly which contractor will perform the service starts to look like money laundering, and most charities will get wary.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3b4fe471620d50e5a84a040ceb454af1",
"text": "It's wrong in several situations: One, the business owner counts this as a business expense, which it is not, and therefore reduces the company's profit and taxes. That would be tax avoidance and probably criminal. Two, someone who is not the sole owner counts this as a business expense, which it is not, reduces the company's profit and when profits are shared, the company pays out less money to the other owners. That's probably fraud. Third, if the owner or owners of a limited liability company draw out lots of money from the company with the intent that the company should go bankrupt with tons of debt that the owners are not going to pay, while keeping the money they siphoned off for themselves. That would probably bankruptcy fraud. Apart from being wrong, there is the obvious risk that you lose control over your company's and your own expenses, and might be in for a nasty surprise if the company has to pay out money and there's nothing left. That would be ordinary stupidity. If you have to tell your employees that you can't pay their salaries but offer them to admire your brand new Ferrari, that's something I'd consider deeply unethical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f348457c71a3f110b33448af70a9348d",
"text": "Yes, the business can count that as an expense but you will need to count that as income because a computer = money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "753e8edbb46508730877c3b05fc8812f",
"text": "An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b0436dec2a966beeef456ac1afa55a3",
"text": "not if it's only Bob and a couple others that are having the problem. The company is spending more money on the wages of the guy helping him out than what Bob brought to the company with his purchase. There's no sense in paying for a customer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aded402bd51de6c5e624d61882af5c79",
"text": "I'm not a lawyer and someone more knowledgeable than I will probably respond to this inquiry. I worked with nonprofits for years however. My suggestion would be that the Board would have a resolution allowing the Director to approve any contract below a certain dollar amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36bc3419347f5ab9a094d1c7d866fbae",
"text": "\"Anything is negotiable. Clearly in the current draft of the contract the company isn't going to calculate or withhold taxes on your behalf - that is your responsibility. But if you want to calculate taxes yourself, and break out the fees you are receiving into several \"\"buckets\"\" on the invoice, the company might agree (they might have to run it past their legal department first). I don't see how that helps anything - it just divides the single fee into two pieces with the same overall total. As @mhoran_psprep points out, it appears that the company expects you to cover your expenses from within your charges. Thus, it's up to you to decide the appropriate fees to charge, and you are assuming the risk that you have estimated your expenses incorrectly. If you want the company to pay you a fee, plus reimburse your expenses, you will need to craft that into the contract. It's not clear what kind of expenses you need to be covered, and sometimes companies will not agree to them. For specific tax rule questions applicable to your locale, you should consult your tax adviser.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77ab62b35ae2e993a581105bd61da212",
"text": "To expand a little on what littleadv said, you can only deduct what something cost you. Even if you had done volunteer work for a charity as a sole prop you could only deduct your actual costs. If you paid an employee to do charity work or to learn something related to the business that would be deductible as a normal business expense. Some common sense would show that if you could deduct something that didn't cost you anything (your time) you could deduct away all of your income and avoid paying taxes altogether. Back to your more nuanced question could 2 businesses you own bill each other for services? Yes, but you will still have to pay taxes for money earned under each of them. You will also need to be careful that the IRS does not construe the transactions as being done solely to lower your tax bill.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b48b96a62ca738ac2d397121a24ed968",
"text": "\"Note: I have no experience of attempting what is described below (neither am I a lawyer nor an accountant). The process may range from a \"\"small bureaucratic hurdle\"\" to a \"\"complex legal nightmare\"\". If it seems a plausible approach, you would probably be well-advised to reach out to others that have established CASCs for help and guidance. According to this HMRC page the two ways a body can claim Gift Aid is if either it is a recognised charity or if it is a Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC). So one option may be to try and establish a CASC. I suspect that this is unlikely to be an easy process, but may be a more likely approach than trying to get the council to establish a charity. The Register as a community amateur sports club (CASC) page on the HMRC site (very) briefly describes the steps; as you can see from their eligibility criteria, to register as a CASC, you would first have to create a \"\"Sports Club\"\" of some form that: has a formal constitution is open to the whole community and has affordable membership fees is on an amateur basis provides facilities in the UK is managed by \"\"fit and proper persons\"\" You would probably need the co-operation of the local council to allow the proposed sports club the use of the local park. One of the (several) requirements of becoming a CASC is that it must: So it could, in theory, be possible to spend money raised (through both membership fees and Gift-Aid-qualifying donations) on the improving the facilities of the park (tennis courts, bowling green etc.). However, note that How to Register page mentions (among many other requirements) the need to provide \"\"accounts from the last 12 months\"\" and \"\"bank statements from the last 3 months\"\". It doesn't (as far as I can see) explicitly state that the club must have been in existence for 12 months before applying for CASC status (it might be possible to send only what you have), but be aware that you may need to establish the club – and let it operate under its own steam – for a period before applying.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50d712e4318ff47ff4c92c5ddf4fa22d",
"text": "I'm not certain I understand what you're trying to do, but it sounds like you're trying to create a business expense for paying off your personal debt. If so - you cannot do that. It will constitute a tax fraud, and if you have additional partners in the LLC other than you and your spouse - it may also become an embezzlement issue. Re your edits: Or for example, can you create a tuition assistance program within your company and pay yourself out of that for the purposes of student loan money. Explicitly forbidden. Tuition assistance program cannot pay more than 5% of its benefits to owners. See IRS pub 15-B. You would think that if there was a way to just incorporate and make your debts pre-tax - everyone would be doing it, wouldn't you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac8916af592d24f229674bf1f89c93c2",
"text": "If this is something you plan to continue doing it would make sense to create it as it's own business entity and then to get non-profit status eg: 501c3. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you have to think of it as YOU receiving the money as a sole proprietor - and file a couple more tax forms at the end of the year. I think it's a Schedule C. So essentially if you bring in $10,000, then you spend that $10,000 as legit business expenses for your venture your schedule C would show no profit and wouldn't pay taxes on it. BUT, you do have to file that form. Operating this way could have legal implications should something happen and you get sued. Having the proper business entity setup could help in that situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a93f6ac8c24a679353bd5f3311380fee",
"text": "I see two ways you can handle this. Use the gifts for the purpose of creating more free software. This is fundraising, and your cause is writing free software. The language is a little tricky from the PayPal Donate button (emphasis mine): This button is intended for fundraising. If you are not raising money for a cause, please choose another option. Nonprofits must verify their status to withdraw donations they receive. Users that are not verified nonprofits must demonstrate how their donations will be used, once they raise more than $10,000 USD. You don't have to be a nonprofit; they are only requiring existing nonprofits to verify their status. You don't even have to account for the donations if they are below $10,000. Give out your PayPal email address and instruct the gift-givers to simply send you money through their PayPal interface. They can mark it as a gift when they send the money. I think option one is how the various bloggers and other personal users are justifiying their collection of donations, and I think its a valid use of the PayPal Donate button.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad5b8a7665f87f4c1a7685590461e7f",
"text": "This is tax fraud, plain and simple. I recently wrote an article The Step Transaction Doctrine, in which I explain that a series of events may each be legal, but aggregate to one transaction and the individual steps are ignored. In this case, it goes beyond that, by accepting $5/mo you are already outside the tax code. As littleadv noted, you can't work for a legitimate business for free and not expect to have some kind of issue. The $14K/yr gift isn't a bona fide gift, but ties to that work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "691b6d6029c2f362848881780986f078",
"text": "I think you can. I went to Mexico for business and the company paid for it, so if you are self employed you should be able to expense it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffa2250acc63d88f31a6961a58f380b9",
"text": "I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2",
"text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b6f0a300b064f52122c63b352845b87f
|
How to find a reputable company to help sell a timeshare?
|
[
{
"docid": "485867b7db6cf10526600553b243658c",
"text": "You are right to be skeptical of timeshare listing companies. As you can imagine, it is very difficult to actually sell a timeshare. You know firsthand how awful they are; it takes trickery to sell them. True story: In my office building years ago, the office across the hall was occupied by a timeshare listing service. One day about a dozen FBI agents showed up and raided the office. As with any service company like this, you can sometimes find reviews on the Better Business Bureau. As an alternative, instead of trying to sell your timeshare, you may want to hire a lawyer to try to get out of it. I have absolutely no experience with this, but I have heard advertisements on the radio for one such firm called Timeshare Exit Team. There may be others that do the same thing. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "167991b1b13c5195d70f3f669f2d4a77",
"text": "The one thing I would like to add to Ben's answer is that you will be lucky to get out of this with no proceeds. So that 30-40K paid for the timeshare maybe a total loss. If this purchase was financed with the timeshare used as collateral you may need to pay it off prior to being released. One tactic I heard used is to offer the sales team, that sold you the timeshare, a bonus for selling yours instead of one out of inventory. Assuming their commission is typically 25% of the sales price, you might consider offering them 40% or some higher figure. Doing it this way, you will have all the slick marketing on your side probably generating the highest amount of revenue possible. Timeshares are really bad deals. If you know this you can score some cheap vacations by attending their seminars and continuing to say no. The wife and I recently got back from a nice trip to Aruba mostly paid for with airline points, and a 2 hour timeshare tour.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5b11f0dc0e0798f041dd1a545f5c593",
"text": "You own something with very little market value - even if you paid a large price for it initially. Your cost to sell may be more than the price you get. Like any other item that has limited resale value, your best option may be to donate it. A quick Google search will turn up some options. This will likely be less hassle than selling. Also, you have a potential tax write-off.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6808e0317dcff7bba730c53f273e3cc3",
"text": "I used to work as a sale support for one of these companies. As a sale support I didn't get commission from the sale but a sale manager did and he made good money. However, I ended up doing a lot of the sales myself and never got any commission for it (even though the boss kept promising me that I would get them). It's relatively easy money, but I felt like you have to sell your soul a little. It's hard to justify for yourself that a 30% interest for a 6 month term is a great deal so you can get your guests to take the loan. Most of the clients you will likely get are the ones who 1) have little knowledge about finance and/or 2) cannot get a loan anywhere else. Nobody would get a loan with these companies if they have a better choice. I also found it was borderline harassment for my clients because I was forced to constantly call them few times a day to get them into taking our loan offers. I did end up leaving the company after three months because the boss was disrespectful, degrading and thought he could do it all himself. Back to your question, it is not shady mostly because it's definitely legal but the sales tactics can be. That would depend on your management but I would say most companies probably employs similar tactics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02652a2907593af155500446726db5b3",
"text": "Usually your best bet for this sort of thing is to look for referrals from people you trust. If you have a lawyer or other trusted advisor, ask them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feef54940cc10880942d031d9ebca43d",
"text": "Then you want to contact the chain's *franchise development* department -- they typically offer a deal in which you obtain the financing and run the hotel, but they provide you with the brand and various kinds of help. For example: http://development.ihg.com/contact-us http://hiltonworldwide.com/development/develop-hotel/ https://hotel-development.marriott.com/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6866849654471563690ca6a64e49f17",
"text": "Timeshare and resort packages are a popular option for people who take frequent vacations. But are they a good deal? Many people sign up due to attractive sales pitches but are then disappointed by the actual package. It's a good idea to read reviews from experienced travelers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fda430a362f25a1a2fad2fbdc7ebceb7",
"text": "\"I find the sun country airline a unique example, it is owned by Marty Davis, CEO of Cambria (a countertop / stone tile company). They use the airline to promote their countertop business with in- flight magazines and even and Cambria logo on the door of the plane as you walk in. I have been a fan of Sun Country for a long time, but recently a new CEO took over and there was a memo leaked that they are going to start operating like an allegiant or Spirit \"\"super-discount\"\" airline. I hope not, I choose sun country for the people that operate their planes and for the simple, no-bullshit, I buy a ticket, I get bags and a checked Bag is $25. So far it's the only airline that I am a fanatic for, and I hope that their culture isn't sold in a race for the bottom dollar. I am pretty sure that Marty Davis bought Sun Country with a deep discount after the Petters Group Worldwide Fraud became known. Full history with some financial information if you're interested. It obviously isn't a \"\"Big\"\" Airline, but I am still a big fan. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Country_Airlines\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d28f509df354182aa8f43951f355c0a6",
"text": "Do we need salespeople anymore? Do I need someone who may or may not know their shit when I can research online with various sources? Paying all these salespeople who come off as forcing a deal isn't what 2017 retail should be about. Go in your BB. Look at potential TV buyers ask questions. Then listen to the salespeople. We have Magnolia in BB around here and they actually know what they are talking about but most BB without them do not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44773b791dd461b802c3133874e8f7e3",
"text": "Sales are useless. Profit determines value. Others made good suggestions, but make sure you don't personally guarantee anthing. Understand your requirements to continue having the investor involved. Understand who has approval authority and decision making authority, ie are you a hired gun or the managing owner? Finally, probability of success is low, so do your homework, bust your ass, and understand when you will wall away (ie if you aren't profitable in 3 years, or below $500k in rev, etc)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ec2b8ad9b3230f1e40022f27b2155ca",
"text": "When you take the tourist to buy tickets, show them where and which one to buy. I didn't like how my tuk Tuk driver just sat there and pointed to where I had to go. Explain to tourist what the price ranges are for a tour guide. I wouldn't recommend a specific tour guide because we all hate being coerced into paying people services, we will think you are all one big business.l and we don't like that! Tripadvisor and business cards is a great idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33161b51d58d4c2c9bf01f92465e2220",
"text": "Thanks everyone. Just how would you suggest I incentivize a customer base that is 90% vacationers. Not really repeat every year visitors. Those would be easy. A discount on the next dive. But for the people who are just on honeymoon. They stop in and want to dive one day or rent snorkel gear and they never come back. We need something that we can give them after the fact since they pay up front.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "067b64b62ef5863866fda766820f65ae",
"text": "\"The recommendation is not to make the investment. In general, a company does not have to sell their shares to you or allow you to become an investor, because, as you have stated, it is a private company not quoted on the stock market. If everyone were trustworthy, you could buy the tools for $11000 -- so that you own the tools -- and sign a lease of the tools to the company whereby they pay you $X/month. The lease should be reviewed by a lawyer before it is signed, and perhaps give the buyer the right to demand back the tools at any time. However, even this arrangement is very risky, because the \"\"company\"\" could simply steal or damage the tools and disappear. It is not an investment that I would make, because it sounds too good to be true. $2800/mo steady cash flow for $11,000 invested. No, I don't think so. The following information may also be useful, either to you, or future readers: If you still want to make this investment, then you should know that: The offering for sale of shares by companies located in the USA is subject to a wild array of complex laws. This is true in many other countries as well. These laws, called securities laws or regulations, can require certain disclosures, require that investors have a high net worth so that they can afford to lose the money or conduct their own investigations and legal actions, or require that the investors know the company founders personally, and can prohibit or limit resale by the buyer/investor. Promoters who say you can still invest and are ignoring or disobeying the securities laws are being at least negligent, but more likely are dishonest and probably criminal. Even if you trust in the investment, can you trust negligent managers to do a good job executing that investment? What about dishonest managers? What about criminals and thieves?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c930926902e10d8b135a90ddfbcc9a",
"text": "THANK YOU so much! That is exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately I'm goign to be really busy for 7 days but I'd love to tear through some of this material and ask you some questions if you don't mind. What do you do for a living now? Still in real estate? Did you go toward the brokerage side or are you still consulting? What's the atmosphere/day-to-day like?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5442e35669d842a3d5e0e25e082bc9b",
"text": "I ended up getting a letter in the mail a while later from Florida Treasure Hunt, and I did end up getting something from it. This brings up a very interesting find: Florida Treasure Hunt must first sell the listings to third-party companies to see if they can get your business. That's the only explanation I have for what happened.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aad964023bfe20997bec03f865987ce6",
"text": "\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baeda48ad38b88a95a6cbfd626419096",
"text": "I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "441f95afd6f679724e6c737d8e4a9369",
"text": "Why should I give you a single minute of my time? Until you can answer that question, it doesn't matter *how* you go about reaching them. You have to look at it like sales situation. Unless you can demonstrate value to them within the first couple of sentences, you won't be given the time of day. These guys get pitched all day long -whether it's their employees, investors, people looking for investments or people looking for a mentor. I'd suggest looking locally first. Go to a couple business association meetings in your area (a lot of them are free or cost under $50). These meetings almost always have time for networking, but you'll only get out of it what you put into it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6b37f0d0a2c6c7108fb3775cdeadc063
|
Is Amazon's offer of a $50 gift card a scam?
|
[
{
"docid": "e9bac1027ee2d9a25304a0689621aa4a",
"text": "These kinds of credit card offers are incredibly common. More often you will get a certain reward if you spend $X within Y days of getting the card. In many cases you can take advantage of them with very little downside. However, are you responsible enough to have a credit card and be able to pay off the balance every month? If not the interest charges could quickly wipe out the $50 bonus you get. And hard inquiries and new accounts could potentially affect your credit score, particularly if you don't have a well-established credit history. There's also the chance you get denied in which case you add a hard inquiry to your credit report for no gain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b02f072b9ce5130ff5a25e31797035",
"text": "\"What's going on here is that Amazon/visa thinks that the money they will earn on average from irresponsible credit card users is more value than 50$ each. This is the same logic that is behind the cash back or airplane point bonuses many credit cards offer, or the \"\"apply and get a free 2-liter of soda\"\" that some stores offer. I would need more information about the card to say whether or not you should apply (What are the fees, if any? What is the interest rate? etc).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16e30183af068872836fb8efc27c0db3",
"text": "\"The most likely reason for this card is that Amazon has an arrangement with the issuer (I believe that that used to be Chase; may have changed since). Such an arrangement may allow Amazon to take the risk of chargebacks, etc. in return for the issuer handling the mechanics of billing. This is advantageous for Amazon, as otherwise they are subject to both their own procedures and those of the issuer. Amazon would rather take the entire risk than share it with someone else who charges for the privilege. Fees for processing credit cards can be as much as 5%, although 1-2% is more typical. Due to its size, Amazon may already have negotiated fees lower than 1%. But even so, any savings they make are to their benefit. Further, now they can get a share of the fees charged to other merchants. For example, if you buy a book from Barnes & Noble (an Amazon competitor) with the Amazon card, then Amazon gets some money in return, say 1% of the transaction. If the price is the same on Amazon and at Barnes & Noble, you can actually save money with the Amazon card. Amazon gives more \"\"cash back\"\" in the form of gift card balance for an Amazon purchase. So the card may mean that you buy from Amazon when you might otherwise have chosen someone else. If we again assume a 20% margin, they only need $200 of additional purchases to make $40 of profit. Someone who buys $1000 additional on the Amazon site makes them $200 of profit. They're over $160 ahead. Also note that Amazon is only giving you a gift card, which you have to use on Amazon. And it's difficult to spend exactly $50. As a practical matter, most people will buy, say, $60, with $10 of that money. So they sell you $48 of merchandise (their cost, assuming a 20% margin) for $10. They lost $38 on that transaction, but they've lured you into a long term relationship that may return more than that. And they didn't lose the $50 you gained. They only lost $38. Think about it as a marketing cost. Amazon is willing to pay $38 for a long term relationship with you. From their perspective, doing so in such a way that you come out $50 ahead (assuming you would have made the same purchases without this), is a win-win. Because once they have that relationship, they can leverage it to give them savings elsewhere. This is Amazon's approach in general. Originally all their products were drop shipped (from someone like Ingram Micro). They handled the web site and billing while the drop shipper handled inventory and shipping. Then Amazon added their own warehouses. Now they can do all that separately. This is just the same thing for buyers. Amazon manages all the risk of the transaction and thus gets all the profit. Because Amazon is managing the credit card risk, they have access to all the credit history. This helps them better determine if that sudden shipment of a $2000 camera to Thailand is a real transaction (you're a photographer who regularly vacations in Thailand) or a fake (you've never been to Thailand in your life and your phone is camera enough). That additional information may itself be worth enough to make the relationship profitable for Amazon. Amazon certainly gets something out of the relationship. You give them money. And you are likely to give them more money with the Amazon card than they would otherwise receive. But you get products in return. Is that a good deal? If you prefer having the products to the money, then yes. Others have suggested that it's the irresponsible credit card users that generate the real profit. I disagree. They generate more revenue in the short term, but then they overspend and declare bankruptcy. Then Amazon loses its money. Yes, they get more interest and fees in that case, but if they lose $1000, they needed to make $1000 in profit just to break even. It's safer to make the smaller short term profits with responsible customers who will continue to be customers for the long term. A steady profit of $100 or $200 a year is better than a one time profit of $500 followed by a loss of $1000 followed by nothing for ten years. Anyway, your question was if you should sign up for the card. If you are planning on doing a lot of shopping on Amazon, you might as well. It gives you cash back. If shopping on Amazon is inconvenient, then perhaps that outweighs the advantage of the card. The \"\"cash back\"\" is just Amazon money. You can't spend it anywhere but Amazon. If each transaction gives you a little bit of Amazon money, you have to keep going back to spend it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24c8948643497766dcc1a78c17bb2d63",
"text": "\"Every financial services company (and cellphone provider, cable and broadband provider, private energy supplier, and so on and so forth - it's turtles all the way down in a market economy) spends \"\"something\"\" to acquire a new customer. Paying attractive college students minimum wage to hand out brochures and branded fidget toys costs money. A 1 million piece postal mailing for a 1% response rate costs money. A TV ad or billboard costs money. A signup enticement of cash or airplane miles costs money. The question is, what does an organization spend per new customer? The amount a company wants to spend has to do with their medium term outlook and overall margins, so it will vary with the business cycle, but a rule of thumb is $100-200 spent for each customer who signs up. The advantage to this particular offer is that it may involve some payments to Amazon, but it includes less labor or cost-per-wasted-contact than alternatives. So there's more in the budget to entice the prospect. Recall, it's a one-time cost, and you gain a relationship where you get 2% of credit processing turnover for the duration of the account; a chance at 19.99% APR financing or other fees; and an opportunity to upsell a mortgage or life insurance or IRA accounts, etc to a known customer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4c87e9c8d152315e652b51979588d3c",
"text": "The 'store card' that Amazon offers gives 5% back on Amazon purchases. Some time ago, when I realized how much of my spending was going through Amazon, I chose that card over this one. If you want the card, that's fine, but if you are going to play the reward game, there are far higher bonuses available for card signups. No, it's not a scam. Many stores will offer a discount at the register the day you sign up for there card. In general, the store cards should also give a discount when used at that store, or airline for that matter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4da7bb5d89dee83ddfbc814b49f50ae3",
"text": "Amazon has 2 different cards you can apply for, a store card and a credit card. The credit card is through Chase. The deal is not a scam, I can confirm this because I applied for their credit card and got $70 in the form of a digital gift card. By giving customers free money for signing up for their cards they get more people who are willing to give it a try. Once you have a card, you get benefits like 3-5 percent back on Amazon purchases that will entice consumers to use the card. Amazon likely has an agreement with Chase and they are hoping to get you hooked with the free money and benefits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a90956cd43c5e156a765282c0e5085d",
"text": "\"No. Amazon is a reputable company. Many stores have their own credit card. Additionally they have several cards available, through Visa and Discover. Neither would allow their name to be used knowing that a company was using it to scam people. And credit card companies are used to going after people with the full force of the law on their side. It's the only way they stay in business. I would read the terms and conditions, but as is, it is not a scam. But a free $50 seems to good to be true. Nothing is free. Having their credit card is significant. Look into the ownership of a credit card and how credit card companies make money. And \"\"gift cards for credit cards\"\" are common. In fact, some companies give away money just to fill out an application even if you turn down the card.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "169ccc82e2d86fcbf8bb16740b5b248d",
"text": "\"It's not a scam. They just want you to be an Amazon customer for many years and you'll be advertising Amazon to anyone who sees your credit card. $50 is known as the cost of \"\"customer acquisition\"\" and it is a very good deal for someone who may become a Prime member and spend $1000s a year on Amazon.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab13c8e94669d0061ba71990a2911d94",
"text": "a free $50 looks too good to be true. As others already pointed out, these offers are common to many cards that want you to build loyalty towards a particular company (e.g. airlines cards give lots of mileage for a decent initial spend). Should I get this card for the $50? Why and/or why not? How much do you spend on Amazon, or are planning to do so in future? This offer has been around for ages (earlier they used to offer much smaller amounts of $20 for signing up) and you never saw it. So probably, you won't be really using the site frequently. In that case, its just a matter of whether $50 is worth the hassle for you to sign up and then later cancel (if you don't want to manage another new card). The hit to credit score is likely to be minimal unless you do such offers often. As such, for a person who rarely buys on Amazon I wouldn't advise you to sign up for this card, there are better rewards cards that are not as tied to a particular site (such as Chase Freedom, Discover etc.) If however, you are a regular shopper but just never noticed this prompt earlier; then it is worthwhile to get this - or even consider the Prime version, which you will get or be automatically upgraded to if the account has Prime membership. That gives 5% back instead of 3% on Amazon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56bc6d95b268336280b39839bab6321e",
"text": "it's not a scam. it's not even too good to be true. frankly it's the lowest sign up bonus i've ever seen for a credit card. you would be better off signing up for a flagship card from one of the major banks (e.g. chase sapphire, citi double cash, discover it, amex blue). those cards regularly offer sign up bonuses worth between 400$ and 1000$. however, you can't get all the cards at once. noteably chase has a fairly firm limit of 5 new cards per 24 month. the other banks have similar, less publicized limits on who they will approve for a new card. so, by applying for this amazon card you are hurting your chances of getting far more lucrative sign up bonuses. it is however worth noting that those larger bonuses usually come with a minimum spending requirement (e.g. spend 1k$-3k$ in the first 3 months)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdd3dd91ff757451b0a2770a6cf70218",
"text": "Based on my personal experience with that particular offer, I can say that it's not really a scam. I signed up for an Amazon Credit Card to get $70 off a purchase, but then never used the card. In fact, I never even called to activate it! After a few months, I then called to cancel it. I did not see a significant hit to my credit. However if you do shop frequently at Amazon it may be in your best interest to use their card, because it has other discounts associated with it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "22a87943417c5c159583deeb06fc3e83",
"text": "IANAL, but I'm pretty sure buying something at a store does not enter you in a contract with the store. Also, Target made up the rule about not allowing gift cards and then chose not to enforce it. According to the article, they chose not to enforce it over and over again. In fact, when the promotion ended, Target renewed it with the same terms! Calling these customers cheaters is baseless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60d5c6027151653ea2d0b3f83a24692e",
"text": "No, that's not a fair argument. Obviously that is theft, and the sales associate isn't authorized to do that. She is allowed to act on Target's behalf to process transactions, however. Buying a gift card with a gift card is not theft. At the most it's a breach of a contract, but Target has little resource because it was a mutual breach of contract. A judge would laugh in Target's face if it tried to get its money back after its own employees and managers processed the transactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a62da6e75096e48b6a8875bc3163ca43",
"text": "\"There are only two things you can directly do with the money in an Amazon gift card: you can keep the gift card, or you can put the money into your Amazon account. There aren't any other options. You can't deposit the value into a bank account or anything like that. So, as far as safety, those are the only options you need to consider, because there's nothing else you can do. (Okay, there is one other thing you can do: you could sell the card to someone else, or barter it for something you want. But you can do that with anything.) The \"\"gift card\"\" is basicaly just a string of numbers and letters that you put into your Amazon account and it credits you with the appropriate amount of money. So yes, it can be stolen. If you haven't redeemed it yet, someone could find the code by hacking your email or looking over your shoulder or whatever. If they redeem it, you won't be able to do so. As for your edit: If I don't transfer the balance of the Amazon egift card to my Amazon account, can I transfer the balance to other accounts or use the card to buy other gift cards? If you don't transfer it to your account, you can transfer the balance to another account by giving the code to someone else and letting them deposit it in their account. You still won't be able to buy other gift cards with it, because you can't buy anything with it until it's deposited in an Amazon account, and once it's deposited in an Amazon account, you can't buy gift cards with it because of their policy. If you don't want the restrictions imposed by Amazon, don't buy Amazon gift cards; instead, just use your actual money to buy things. If you're worried about the cards being stolen, just deposit them into your account right away and you eliminate the risk of them being stolen. If, as you say, you bought the cards for yourself, there's no reason not to do this; presumably you bought them so you could buy things on Amazon, and you'll have to deposit them into your account eventually anyway to do that, so just put them in right away. I don't know specifically how Walmart cards work, but I assume they're the same. In general, anything called a \"\"gift card\"\" offered by a particular retailer works the same way: you can't do anything with it except buy products at that retailer. The only thing that really makes Amazon different is that the only way to use your card is to add the money to your Amazon account, because the only way to pay for things on Amazon is with an Amazon account. There's no way to spend just some of the value; you have to deposit it all into your account. With gift cards for retailers with physical locations, you can usually use the value up piecemeal, by actually going to a store and spending just enough to buy something. (I assume Walmart works this way, although I don't know if you can use an e-gift card this way there.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cee2f6ca79d788f239484db00eff466d",
"text": "\"Did you even read the article? These were people who went into the store and did this in person. there are no \"\"orders\"\" to cancel. As for invalidating the cards, again, the article stated that many people took the Target gift cards and used them to buy Amex and Visa gift cards. tl;dr **RTFA**\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e117b07e0d45537f0e5663cba134ae15",
"text": "Lmfao. You seriously believe one of the biggest companies in the world is making this deal in order to get into a niche area within the grocery store market... Amazon is competing with Walmart, not Trader Joe's. One of the biggest setbacks with online retail is the cost of heavy items. This will give them the brick and mortar front in order to cut costs and compete effectively across a plethora of items.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01f6ffb4c97ee5a677804038ba4b8f8f",
"text": "Your first one is third party sellers not having their security up to date, and them losing money based on that. Not at all an Amazon issue. Third party sellers used bad security, got hit the same way anyone else would, news at 11. The second one, I assume, is the like 80,000 email addresses, not connected to anything. With, you'll notice, encrypted passwords. >Oh look FUD. This is not an argument. Are you seriously unaware of license plate readers? I mean, I fucking already sent you a link to it. >Quick someone tell Target their customer's credit card info isn't accessible. Someone tell the government leaking your SS#, date of birth, etc, is way worse than that! And it's for all of us! At least companies learn via stock price. It just keeps happening at the govt at a much worse scale. http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/the-7-most-significant-government-data-breaches/d/d-id/1327468",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e151c1cbf2497a78b250d5bf908a283",
"text": "Stupid article. People on government assistance typically don't have a great deal of money to begin with, and there aren't exactly many items on Amazon that are at 'dollar store' level prices..and unless one is house-bound level of disabled, you really can't fill a whole grocery list by shopping at Amazon as you could running down to Walmart or Save a Lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04e09df8643a9e9bf56221aeef4741af",
"text": "\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\"\"yes\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe2123e3797fe49da20d822d2df10329",
"text": "In store pickup at Walmart is atrocious. I've tried it. And, you still have to go to Walmart. Amazon draws the yuppie types who not only like saving money, but also don't have the time to deal with going to stores and sure as hell don't want to go to Walmart of all places.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6f249e0ff2a1eba602fb9da7350447",
"text": "Not so much a scam, if you fill the required paperwork and actually take time to mail it in assuming it's done correctly; you will get your money. That being said, having a mail-in rebate program is usually a win-win for the seller. While they may have to pay a small fee to a third party who handles the rebate almost always this influences a potential buyer to choose a specific product over the alternative. The seller knows very well that very few people will actually go through with it. And yes, they do often make the process needlessly complicated and long as a deterrent. Plus, let's be real, no one likes sending out physical letters anymore. From a marketing standpoint the mail-in rebate is a brilliant idea. However, it's usually more of an annoyance for the consumer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba9c7a098b91c3adfcde14646cd9d9e2",
"text": "Is the VAT scam still on the go? I was under the impression that amazon have to pay vat according to the country the items are shipped to, not shipped from? It will be a complete fuck up on the part of our politicians if this loophole has not been closed yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa3ece4cecb006933c6acff5a5e9000b",
"text": "or is this a form of money laundering? May not be, generally the amounts involved in money laundering are much higher. So if there are quite a few such transactions then yes it could be money laundering. It could also be for circumventing taxes, depending on country regulations one may try to do this to get around gift taxes etc. In this specific case it looks more of link harvesting / SEO optimization. Take a low cost item that is often searched and link to other product. if you see the company link on Amazon; Cougar takes you to shoes. So maybe on its own Cougar shoes does not rank high, so link it with similar name brand in different segment and try to boost the link.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb130f0db03f4c9abf14829270621a9c",
"text": "The media is not reporting this story correctly. The way Amazon will likely monetize this patent is by *preventing* brick and mortar stores from limiting your ability to comparison shop. The reason? Amazon is the primary beneficiary when shoppers check for prices in real time. Sure, maybe Amazon will also use it to prevent comparison shopping in Whole Foods, but I really doubt that is the primary way Amazon intends to monetize the patent. If you're in Whole Foods, you probably aren't interested in going to Safeway, even though you already know it is cheaper.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41738846c29b227d7c9af116f730c97e",
"text": "Ok so Arbitrage? I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards. Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal. Is there a financial term that fits this better?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f90bbdd90cafa17e1bed146d3546934",
"text": "In addition to paypal, Amazon also offers a payment processing service that has micropayment pricing: For Transactions < $10:",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9cca706cf21cbd87f790e822c22e5865
|
No transaction fee ETF trades - what's the catch?
|
[
{
"docid": "e6a5b1a28f9a16f547af83d7f15df226",
"text": "\"Banks often offer cash to people who open savings accounts in order to drive new business. Their gain is pretty much as you think, to grow their asset base. A survey released in 2008 by UK-based Age Concern declared that only 16% of the British population have ever switched their banks‚ while 45% of marriages now end in divorce. Yip, till death do most part. In the US, similar analysis is pointing to a decline in people moving banks from the typical rate of 15% annually. If people are unwilling to change banks then how much more difficult for online brokers to get customers to switch? TD Ameritrade is offering you 30 days commission-free and some cash (0.2% - 0.4% depending on the funds you invest). Most people - especially those who use the opportunity to buy and hold - won't make much money for them, but it only takes a few more aggressive traders for them to gain overall. For financial institutions the question is straightforward: how much must they pay you to overcome your switching cost of changing institutions? If that number is sufficiently smaller than what they feel they can make in profits on having your business then they will pay. EDIT TO ELABORATE: The mechanism by which any financial institution makes money by offering cash to customers is essentially one of the \"\"law of large numbers\"\". If all you did is transfer in, say, $100,000, buy an ETF within the 30-day window (or any of the ongoing commission-free ones) and hold, then sell after a few years, they will probably lose money on you. I imagine they expect that on a large number of people taking advantage of this offer. Credit card companies are no different. More than half of people pay their monthly credit balance without incurring any interest charges. They get 30 days of credit for free. Everyone else makes the company a fortune. TD Ameritrade's fees are quite comprehensive outside of this special offer. Besides transactional commissions, their value-added services include subscription fees, administration fees, transaction fees, a few extra-special value-added services and, then, when you wish to cash out and realise your returns, an outbound transfer fee. However, you're a captured market. Since most people won't change their online brokers any more often than they'd change their bank, TD Ameritrade will be looking to offer you all sorts of new services and take commission on all of it. At most they spend $500-$600 to get you as a customer, or, to get you to transfer a lot more cash into their funds. And they get to keep you for how long? Ten years, maybe more? You think they might be able to sell you a few big-ticket items in the interim? Maybe interest you in some subscription service? This isn't grocery shopping. They can afford to think long-term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70dd94ebee52e6a3aa1787f229346ce8",
"text": "\"AFAIK, It's also possible that the ETF company is paying Ameritrade for every trade you make. Even if your brokerage doesn't make you pay a fee to trade ETFs, the company that created and runs the ETF is still making money when you purchase and use their ETFs. See \"\"What motivates each player?\"\" at Yahoo Finance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aecb743b3b4ce1da86b2029b6d4bea6",
"text": "what is the mechanism by which they make money on the funds that I have in my account? Risk drives TD Ameritrade to look for profits, Turukawa's storytelling about 100,000$ and 500$ is trivial. The risk consists of credit risk, asset-liability risk and profit risk. The third, based on Pareto Principle, explains the loss-harvesting. The pareto distribution is used in all kind of decentralized systems such as Web, business and -- if I am not totally wrong -- the profit risk is a thing that some authorities require firms to investigate, hopefully someone could explain you more about it. You can visualize the distribution with rpareto(n, shape, scale) in R Statistics -program (free). Wikipedia's a bit populist description: In the financial services industry, this concept is known as profit risk, where 20% or fewer of a company's customers are generating positive income while 80% or more are costing the company money. Read more about it here and about the risk here.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "3434f214ebf6ea235e1f6dc952df5914",
"text": "\"How does [FINRA's 5% markup policy] (http://www.investopedia.com/study-guide/series-55/commissions-and-trade-complaints/finra-5-markup-policy/) affect the expense/profit/value of an ETF/Mutual Fund? An extreme example to illustrate: If my fund buys 100 IBM @ 100, The fund would credit the broker $10,000 for those shares and the broker would give the fund 100 shares. Additionally there would be some sort of commission (say $10) paid on top of the transaction which would come out of the fund's expense ratio. But the broker is \"\"allowed\"\" to charge a 5% markup. So that means, that $100 price that I see could have hit the tape at $95 (assume 5% markup which is allowed). Thus, assuming that the day had zero volatility for IBM, when the fund gets priced at the end of the day, my 100 shares which \"\"cost\"\" 10,000 (plus $10) now has a market value of $9,500. Is that how it \"\"could\"\" work? That 500 isn't calculated as part of the expense of the fund is it? (how could it be, they don't know about the exact value of the markup).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7",
"text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd78d8de100b0b96660b4880dbd1de17",
"text": "Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59cf5efd93208588af4d31a00b6e7d2d",
"text": "NSCC illiquid charges are charges that apply to the trading of low-priced over-the counter (OTC) securities with low volumes. Open net buy quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net buy quantity must be less than 5,000,000 shares per stock for your entire firm Basically, you can't hold a long position of more than 5 million shares in an illiquid OTC stock without facing a fee. You'll still be assessed this fee if you accumulate a long position of this size by breaking your purchase up into multiple transactions. Open net sell quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net sell quantity must be less than 10% percent of the 20-day average volume If you attempt to sell a number of shares greater than 10% of the stock's average volume over the last 20 days, you'll also be assessed a fee. The first link I included above is just an example, but it makes the important point: 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. Technically, these fees are assessed to the clearing firm, not the individual investor, but usually the clearing firm will pass the fees along to the broker (and possibly add other charges as well), and the broker will charge a fee to the individual account(s) that triggered the restriction. Also, remember that when buying OTC/pink sheet stocks, your ability to buy or sell is also contingent on finding someone else to buy from/sell to. If you purchase 10,000 shares one day and attempt to sell them sometime in the future, but there aren't enough buyers to buy all 10,000 from you, you might not be able to complete your order at the desired price, or even at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f178facbd7508300d25c48cbe0b2462",
"text": "If the company has a direct reinvestment plan or DRIP that they operate in house or contract out to a financial company to administer, yes. There can still be transaction fees, and none of these I know of offer real time trading. Your trade price will typically be defined in the plan as the opening or closing price on the trade date. Sometimes these plans offer odd lot sales at a recent running average price which could provide a hundred dollar or so arbitrage opportunity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96316907f30923f52fde39c6eb9b971b",
"text": "Well on a levered fund it makes a lot of sense. If you lose 10% on day one and you are 2x levered you just lost 20%. Now on the next day if it corrects 10% you are still down because you've gone up 20% of a lesser amount then you went down by. Then even worse with oil or commodity funds they are forced to roll their futures since they don't want to take delivery, which allows them to be picked off by traders. This is referred to as levered ETF decay. If you do trade levered funds it should be on an intraday basis, and then you're dealing with serious transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d00dd5afb4e0e6968e4d1bf071575e6",
"text": "\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c7e517d976445ea8fea5aa4c0baa1f4",
"text": "What bank, and is there restrictions on the trades? (i.e. they only go through once a week?) I do light medium term trading - maybe 5-10 trades per quarter - and would love to be able to cut out the fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25e9d3853e7da184bc9830783254f614",
"text": "\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \"\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\"\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \"\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\"\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35889a5546d6239548ae4eb8634a8426",
"text": "The way it is handled with ETF's is that someone has to gather a block of units and redeem them with the fund. So, with the mutual fund you redeem your unit directly with the fund, always, you never sell to another player. With the ETF - its the opposite, you sell to another player. Once a player has a large chunk of units - he can go to the fund and redeem them. These are very specific players (investment banks), not individual investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fa9a19bf4ae1323db1fa31bb93c3932",
"text": "Its hard to write much in those comment boxes, so I'll just make an answer, although its really not a formal answer. Regarding commissions, it costs me $5 per trade, so that's actually $10 per trade ($5 to buy, $5 to sell). An ETF like TNA ($58 per share currently) fluctuates $1 or $2 per day. IXC is $40 per share and fluctuates nearly 50 cents per day (a little less). So to make any decent money per trade would mean a share size of 50 shares TNA which means I need $2900 in cash (TNA is not marginable). If it goes up $1 and I sell, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. I would consider this to be the minimum share size for TNA. For IXC, 100 shares would cost me $4000 / 2 = $2000 since IXC is marginable. If IXC goes up 50 cents, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. IXC also pays a decent dividend. TNA does not. You'll notice the amount of cash needed to capture these gains is roughly the same. (Actually, to capture daily moves in IXC, you'll need a bit more than $2000 because it doesn't vary quite a full 50 cents each day). At first, I thought you were describing range trading or stock channeling, but those systems require stop losses when the range or channel is broken. You're now talking about holding forever until you get 1 or 2 points of profit. Therefore, I wouldn't trade stocks at all. Stocks could go to zero, ETFs will not. It seems to me you're looking for a way to generate small, consistent returns and you're not seeking to strike it rich in one trade. Therefore, buying something that pays a dividend would be a good idea if you plan to hold forever while waiting for your 1 or 2 points. In your system you're also going to have to define when to get back in the trade. If you buy IXC now at $40 and it goes to $41 and you sell, do you wait for it to come back to $40? What if it never does? Are you happy with having only made one trade for $40 profit in your lifetime? What if it goes up to $45 and then dips to $42, do you buy at $42? If so, what stops you from eventually buying at the tippy top? Or even worse, what stops you from feeling even more confident at the top and buying bigger lots? If it gets to $49, surely it will cover that last buck to $50, right? /sarc What if you bought IXC at $40 and it went down. Now what? Do you take up gardening as a hobby while waiting for IXC to come back? Do you buy more at lower prices and average down? Do you find other stocks to trade? If so, how long until you run out of money and you start getting margin calls? Then you'll be forced to sell at the bottom when you should be buying more. All these systems seem easy, but when you actually get in there and try to use them, you'll find they're not so easy. Anything that is obvious, won't work anymore. And even when you find something that is obvious and bet that it stops working, you'll be wrong then too. The thing is, if you think of it, many others just like you also think of it... therefore it can't work because everyone can't make money in stocks just like everyone at the poker table can't make money. If you can make 1% or 2% per day on your money, that's actually quite good and not too many people can do that. Or maybe its better to say, if you can make 2% per trade, and not take a 50% loss per 10 trades, you're doing quite well. If you make $40 per trade profit while working with $2-3k and you do that 50 times per year (50 trades is not a lot in a year), you've doubled your money for the year. Who does that on a consistent basis? To expect that kind of performance is just unrealistic. It much easier to earn $2k with $100k than it is to double $2k in a year. In stocks, money flows TO those who have it and FROM those who don't. You have to plan for all possibilities, form a system then stick to it, and not take on too much risk or expect big (unrealistic) rewards. Daytrading You make 4 roundtrips in 5 days, that broker labels you a pattern daytrader. Once you're labeled, its for life at that brokerage. If you switch to a new broker, the new broker doesn't know your dealings with the old broker, therefore you'll have to establish a new pattern with the new broker in order to be labeled. If the SEC were to ask, the broker would have to say 'yes' or 'no' concering if you established a pattern of daytrading at that brokerage. Suppose you make the 4 roundtrips and then you make a 5th that triggers the call. The broker will call you up and say you either need to deposit enough to bring your account to $25k or you need to never make another daytrade at that firm... ever! That's the only warning you'll ever get. If you're in violation again, they lock your account to closing positions until you send in funds to bring the balance up to $25k. All you need to do is have the money hit your account, you can take it right back out again. Once your account has $25k, you're allowed to trade again.... even if you remove $15k of it that same day. If you trigger the call again, you have to send the $15k back in, then take it back out. Having the label is not all bad... they give you 4x margin. So with $25k, you can buy $100k of marginable stock. I don't know... that could be a bad thing too. You could get a margin call at the end of the day for owning $100k of stock when you're only allowed to own $50k overnight. I believe that's a fed call and its a pretty big deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "620e0c7502c507567baca5005d36645a",
"text": "Some brokerages will allow you to enroll your account in a dividend reinvestment plan -- TD Ameritrade and I think Schwab for example. The way the plan works is that they would take your $4 and give you whatever fractional share of the ETF it is worth on the payment date. There are no fees associated with this purchase (or at least there are in the programs I've seen -- if you have to pay a fee, look for another brokerage). You may also be able to enroll specific securities instead of the entire account into dividend reinvestment. Call your brokerage to see what they offer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b611ab7be380f386dbf483a0cc9637eb",
"text": "I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "639b9ab3d09b533aafdcc8760cf3fd09",
"text": "- ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally <1%. - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio. - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9e5bb6733cce9eeae16d9cf7481cda43
|
Does working in finance firms improve a person's finance knowledge?
|
[
{
"docid": "058ffccf654e98b93d5ef8a7a883bb9e",
"text": "It depends what you mean by financial knowledge. Often you will work in a group focused on some aspect of the company's business. As an example, I work for a company and my group works on econometric models. Although I have a degree in finance, I don't encounter or talk about corporate or personal finance. I do talk about investing with a friend, but in general, our group is focused on one aspect of finance and economics for the company. From another direction, often financial companies will offer financial literacy training through HR and benefits programs where you can improve your knowledge of finance outside of your groups focus. In the end, you will learn the most by persuing new knowledge through reading on current financial literature. I hope this helps. Edit: If you add some specifics to what you would like to learn about I may be able to point you in the right direction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fb23f8b4681cc6333d6bf384f78c536",
"text": "Depends on what work you're doing. If you aren't doing a job which involves working with and understanding the data, probably not.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "52c38129bbad6a37eac2b9ba51647e3d",
"text": "Thats exactly what I am looking to do - a career change. My problem is I dont have any relevant experience in finance (and mot much knowledge either). So I planned to do the CFA thinking that I will get some relevant knowledge in order to apply for jobs in the field. As things stand now I dont if I will fare well in an interview if I get a call. You got a job explaining your investments, thats impressive. I wonder if you could tell me, what other things will the interviewers grind you on if an IT guy looks to get into finance without any relevant experience?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9264f560888d9710a4e733bfd34d458d",
"text": "I asked about this in the last thread, but got no answers because it was 4-5 days old at the time. I'm a finance student, and currently an intern at a big Financial Services firm. The internship is in compliance, though, and that's not exactly where I want to end up later. I don't know exactly what I want to do, but I assume there are some skills that are widely applicable in the entire industry that aren't taught enough, and I want to learn something over the summer (through Coursera/books/videos/whatever). The problem is, I don't know what. Does anyone here have any suggestions? I was thinking something along the lines of programming or some more advanced excel stuff that isn't taught in school, but I don't really have any place to start. Any advise would be appreciated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d19dadd1ed109f99fae50b17089479e8",
"text": "Work-life balance is kind of a bad joke if you actually are in a career with high growth potentials imo. It isn't even confined to just finance. Anyone I know with high growth potential jobs, especially during junior years at the firm, will require quite a bit of OT. I'd say most 9-5 jobs do not provide rapid growth in salary / positions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15110213e416340a0b00652a87f35f74",
"text": "To start with the easier one: I went to a large state school that's got a well-ranked business school for undergrad and majored in finance. No masters. The ranking isn't necessary, but the degree (or one similar) probably is just to get into the finance field. You could do treasury work with an accounting degree, and you really could do it with any degree, but a lot of companies might not want to take a chance on you if you don't have at least some applicable knowledge. Typical day: I usually get in around 7:30 and crank out a couple of daily tasks: I gather bank statements and do some minor data entry to come up with a prediction of what our cash is going to look like for the day. Depending on the day, I get into our Bloomberg terminal and send out money for overnight investment or sell commercial paper to raise money on a short term basis. I do some minor housekeeping/accounting work that's mostly system generated, we just check it. I spend the middle portion of my day approving payments, meeting with business groups to help develop our forecast better for the next 30-60-90 days, maybe meet with bankers if they're in the office, maybe do ad hoc work, maybe do debt analysis, etc. Basically this is my free work time. End of the day I gather more bank reports, send out results for the day to leadership and an updated projection of cash flow for the rest of the month. If things get really exciting, I might get to take part in an acquisition, do stuff with bonds, etc. It rarely gets that exciting though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d92328b094a5df3c5d586bf8a4e5f54f",
"text": "\"In finance What kind of amorphous bullshit is that? There are literally hundreds of different things that can varyingly be termed \"\"in finance\"\". If you want the traditional big bank job working as a spreadsheet monkey, very fucking difficult right now. Masters in finance doubling down on a BS: if it's from Princeton, great, if it's from Blue Mountain State, whatever. A CFA is getting common but it might help - it probably won't hurt at least. If you mean \"\"as a big shot trader for a hedge fund\"\" the answer is precisely impossible with only that on your resume. If you mean entry corporate finance, it's certainly possible (although you should not listen to anything I say in this regard as I've successfully avoided learning much about the subject thus far and have no intention of changing that, thus am as roughly as reliable on that as a wet paper towel).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32867ac85a447946c34e228efeab843d",
"text": "\"I actually interviewed to work at the SEC as an \"\"industry transplant.\"\" I was surprised to learn the limits of the SEC's power - namely, they cannot compel anybody to show them any documents - even ones financial firms are required to hold. When firms do \"\"cooperate,\"\" they tend to make it as difficult as possible for investigators. All the SEC can do in the end is sue the firm, and that's a long drawn out process (I understand now why there are so many settlements). What I learned, however, is that the SEC needs more people like myself who have worked in the business. Most people who interviewed me were attorneys and (sometimes) accountants. Their experience in the financial industry was limited to working at legal firms who did financial advisory work. Many simply don't even know what to look for. I'm still waiting to hear back, but there are a lot of lawyers who are sick of working industry jobs and would love the pay and work environment of the SEC - so it's tough to get a position there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56b71f74e23a9f6b4965038946c02242",
"text": "I am newly applying to finance related jobs, my question is, could someone ELI5 what exactly different sectors within finance are? Like capital markets, derivatives, equity research, wealth management. All of this seems overwhelming coming at it at once.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75260e7774ee476972d911e43cb412db",
"text": "\"There are some tedious parts for sure - often times people hear \"\"Finance\"\" and think invoices, accounting, etc., but I would say it's less that 10% of my role. I do handle the budgeting process - what I have enjoyed about that is that it offers a window into the strategy of the firm, and whether they are making investments in areas that align with their strategic objectives. This is another good question to ask as you get to know different teams - does the FP&A/Finance group have a seat at the table in strategic discussions. In any corp fin function, I think you will find that the more finance is valued as a partner to the business, the more interesting your work will be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55dd7aebb55d13bda4e7e34f57f75397",
"text": "I agree. The CFA is nice for students who have the time to take the exam, because it could be a year or two before the start working, so it is a reasonable resume padder (especially if your major is engineer, science, or math and you want to do finance). If you are trying to do a career change, it is important to know the material, because if you don't, then you can't do the job even if someone gives it to you. But passing the test isn't as important as actually applying to the jobs and networking. I switched from engineering to finance (buyside equity analyst). Originally I planned to take the CFA exams to help me with my transition. But their new rule required a valid passport, and it takes a while to get one, so I missed the deadline for last December's exam. That turned out to be a good thing because I just started networking, cold calling/emailing, applying to jobs, etc and I got my current job. If I had actually decided to take the CFA, I would have wasted all my time preparing for the exam instead of trying to get the job. Potential employers know if you are good or not after talking to you for 15 minutes. It has nothing to do with being able to memorize a set of formulas, some the last name of some economists and their theories, some oscure accounting differences between GAAP and IFRS, etc. For me it was the fact that I invest my own money and that I am able to explain my own investments very intelligently (aka it needs to be a lot better than what you see on /r/investing). If you know nothing about finance, studying the CFA material and then taking the exam is a good thing. You are going to be studying the material anyways if you are serious about a career change, so might as well take the exam afterwards and get a resume padder. I did end up taking the level 1 this month because my new employer paid for it. I don't think it adds any value once your foot is already in the door, especially since it takes 5 years of experience to get the charter (after that amount of time, it's all about job experience).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eab93318e1df76714209fac10fef2357",
"text": "At this point, completely useless. In the beginning it was useful to get my foot in the door. I still do the odd excel macro to automate some kind of analysis or valuation I do, but its like .. twice a year. So not very useful at this point. But I'd say that university taught me how to *learn* so its not as much about what i learned, but the process of learning how to learn effectively. Without that I wouldnt have been able to do the CFA, or learn anything else that I had to in order to get here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adf9e253173451846ae5fda97ba27fd4",
"text": "The best learning technique for me is not to dredge through books in order to gain a better understanding of finance. This is tedious and causes me to lose interest. I'm not sure of your tolerance for this type of learning. I tend to learn in small pieces. Something piques my interest and I go off reading about that particular topic. May I suggest some alternate methods:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f4587cce75eb5a3d4934057ee999966",
"text": "http://i.imgur.com/qvayKiB.jpg I bet many mathematicians would tell you that learning math makes you a better investor. And programmers would tell you that learning how to code makes you a better investor. And similarly for [biologists](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-20/hedge-fund-quant-posting-21-return-says-biology-is-secret-sauce) and sociologists and psychologists and [linguists](https://tepper.cmu.edu/-/media/files/tepper/extranet/academic%20programs/phd/dissertations/gao%20dissertation%20pdf.pdf) (PDF). Admittedly I have my own preconceived notions about [literary criticism](http://xkcd.com/451/), but I'd be tempted to believe the argument of an expert in any of those fields over a literary critic's.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48de6126e09b4d109fb35118ec96977d",
"text": "Become genuinely passionate about the subject and the knowledge/experience will guide you. If you're really desperate to get a position in finance ASAP, i would recommend a financials sales path. Sales is usually the most avoided path, as well as one of the most important skill sets to have. Most people don't even know that the top investment banking positions are sales, lol.....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d44a318b4b64ec24840c1cb7fb2a6ff0",
"text": "You really just need to learn about finance, trading and the markets. I know a chemical engineer that did an IB internship. He joined our universities Investments club and just learned everything from there. He never took a single business class",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d82d63b3d880c95aec153bdfbca001c",
"text": "There are several paths of study you could undertake. If you want to learn the fundamentals of the stock market and become a financial analyst, then finance, economics, and accounting (yes, accounting) are all good to study either on your own or in an institution. Furthermore, if you want to study a specific industry, it can't hurt to know a fair amount of the science behind that particular industry. For example, if you want to understand the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries, knowledge of clinical trials, the FDA's approval process (in the US, at least), off-label uses for drugs, genetic engineering, etc. are all good to know. You don't have to become an expert, but having a firm grasp on the science is extremely useful when evaluating a company's prospects. If you're interested in becoming an algorithmic trader or a quant, then physics, certain fields of engineering, signals processing, applied math, computer science, or econometrics will get you much farther than a standard finance or accounting degree. Most people can learn the basics of finance; not everyone can learn advanced mathematics. A lot of the above applies to learning about the forex market as well. Economics is certainly helpful, especially central bank policy, but since the forex market is so massive and liquid, many mathematical tools are necessary because algorithms play a key role as well. Per littleadv's suggestion, an MBA with a concentration in finance may be an option for someone who already has a degree. Also, an MSF (Master of Science in Finance) or a degree in financial engineering (called an MFE, or ORFE, for Operations Research and Financial Engineering) are other, potentially better options for someone pursuing a more technical career. A high-octane trading firm may not care that you've taken marketing and management classes; they want to hire someone who can understand complex algorithms and design and implement new ones quickly. Some MSF programs are pre-experience programs, which means that in exchange for taking more time to complete, they don't expect you to have significant work experience in the financial industry. An MBA might require such experience, however.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6eae650f4eb3d246ae11dd68006ac241
|
Over the long term, why invest in bonds?
|
[
{
"docid": "e2174f138c71e1504c17ffbbe56eb991",
"text": "\"If I don't need this money for decades, meaning I can ride out periodical market crashes, why would I invest in bonds instead of funds that track broad stock market indexes? You wouldn't. But you can never be 100% sure that you really won't need the money for decades. Also, even if you don't need it for decades, you can never be 100% certain that the market will not be way down at the time, decades in the future, when you do need the money. The amount of your portfolio you allocate to bonds (relative to stocks) can be seen as a measure of your desire to guard against that uncertainty. I don't think it's accurate to say that \"\"the general consensus is that your portfolio should at least be 25% in bonds\"\". For a young investor with high risk tolerance, many would recommend less than that. For instance, this page from T. Rowe Price suggests no more than 10% bonds for those in their 20s or 30s. Basically you would put money into bonds rather than stocks to reduce the volatility of your portfolio. If you care only about maximizing return and don't care about volatility, then you don't have to invest in bonds. But you probably actually do care about volatility, even if you don't think you do. You might not care enough to put 25% in bonds, but you might care enough to put 10% in bonds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd4931e1968953260f3368e895dd5e48",
"text": "Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b70a0767127af96e29b1b5b41b93e99",
"text": "\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "138baafde70878589e308c1b46610db7",
"text": "Many folks use bonds to diversify their portfolio since bonds rise and fall in value at different times and for different reasons than stocks. Bonds pay interest on a regular basis (usually monthly or quarterly) and so some people invest in bonds in order to match the interest payments to some regular expense they might have. The interest payment does not change (fixed income). For individual bonds, there is a maturity date at which you can expect to receive the face value of the bond (the issuer's creditworthiness is important here). You can make a little money on a bond by buying it when its value is lower than its face value and either selling later for a higher value, or waiting for it to mature. Often the minimum investment for a single bond is high, so if you don't have a large enough amount, you can still get the performance of bonds through a bond fund. These do not mature, so you don't have a guarantee of a return of your investment. However, they have access to more bonds than retail investors, so the funds can keep your money more fully invested. If you don't need the income, you can reinvest the dividends and have a little extra capital growth this way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "132ecb257ac4664dc0b3037828419962",
"text": "You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbdff4b74a172dce539bd323e632508",
"text": "\"The time value of money is very important in understanding this issue. Money today is worth more than money next year, two years from now, etc. It's a well understood economics concept, and well worth reading about if you have some, well, time. Not only is money literally worth more now than later due to inflation, but there is the simple fact that, assuming you have money for the purpose of doing something, being able to do that thing today is better than doing that same thing tomorrow. \"\"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush\"\" gets to this rather directly; having it now is better than probably having it later. Would you rather have a nice meal tonight, or eat beans and rice tonight and then have the same nice meal next year? That's why interest exists, in part: you're offered some money now, for more money later; or in the case of buying a bond, you're offered more money later for some money now. The fact that people have different discount rates for money later is why the loan market can exist: people with more money than they can use now have a lower discount for future money than people who really need money right now (to buy a house, to pay their rent, whatever). So when choosing to buy a bond, you look at the money you're going to get, both over the short term (the coupon rate) and the long term (the face value), and you consider whether $80 now is worth $100 in 20 years, plus $2 per year. For some people it is - for some people it isn't, and that's why the price is as it is ($80). Odds are if you have a few thousand USD, you're probably not going to be interested in this - or if you have a very long term outlook; there are better ways to make money over that long term. But, if you're a bank needing a secure investment that won't lose value, or a trust that needs high stability, you might be willing to take that deal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a594531713f25db64f1f7048814d8604",
"text": "A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db66be504a892bc3ea02c50fdb954cbc",
"text": "\"In the quoted passage, the bonds are \"\"risky\"\" because you CAN lose money. Money markets can be insured by the FDIC, and thus are without risk in many instances. In general, there are a few categories of risks that affect bonds. These include: The most obvious general risk with long-term bonds versus short-term bonds today is that rates are historically low.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7755f8c87469a7bce12e478865efa8ef",
"text": "When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55a7bd36c545fb5229e6d80425af33a9",
"text": "This is a perfect example of why bonds are confusing at first glance. Think about it this way... You buy a 30-year Russian Bond at 4%. An event happens that makes Russia risky to invest in. You want to buy another bond but fuck 4%, you and the rest of the market want 6% to compensate you for the risk. Now let's say you want to sell your 4% bond... Well you're going to have to drop the price of that bond in order for it to appeal to an investor that could go out and get a 6%. On a 30-year bond of that kind, you're looking at about 75% of what you bought it for. So to wrap it up, high bond yields are great for buyers that don't already own them, but bad for sellers who want to get rid of their old ones. It is the opposite intuition as stocks and almost everything else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aaca1bc531b6eef0e29db9a819bcf72",
"text": "Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low. For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy. Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices. I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries. This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare. Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later. Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985. Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely? I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d1c127a3e9e3982f880d91565d518c2",
"text": "I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years. The concept is sound if executed correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e431c2f9d469ccc33da64dbcf88180e7",
"text": "Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "714c109a6f73a24b52331fe0ecc0db3a",
"text": "If you want to spend all of your money in the next few years, then a CD protects you from the risk of a bear market. however, if your time horizon is longer than 10 years, then the stock market is a better bet, since it is less effected by inflation risk. also, as you point out average stock returns are much higher, ignoring volatility. On the whole, CD's appeal to people who would otherwise save their money in cash. generally, it seems these people are simply afraid of stocks and bonds because those securities can lose nominal value as well as real value. I suspect this is largely because these people don't understand inflation, nor the historical long-term index fund performance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "159fd918e0c65f68e6529b8c7b2f5907",
"text": "I found a comparison of stock and bond returns. The relevant portion here is that bonds went up by 10% in 2007 and 20% in 2008 (32% compounded). Stocks were already recovering in 2009, going up almost 26%. You don't mention what you were hoping to get from your gold investment, but bonds gave a very good return for those two years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a16e38607c9d834e9d46ff63df423c5",
"text": "No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1780c956b6e79156a96d46a6b5e1ce97",
"text": "\"Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not \"\"safe\"\"; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce6a9019ce22a1ff13282f68d93ca6f4",
"text": "\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2631eae9633f063f2dc1e9802e506444",
"text": "If you look at it from the hedging perspective, if you're unsure you're going to need to hedge but want to lock in an option premium price if you do need to do so, I could see this making sense.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1828a8cd8fbe68542b960e73c354463f
|
What does “interest rates”, without any further context, generically refer to?
|
[
{
"docid": "e16b834629cbf3ea7dbfc65ce2a43ca4",
"text": "\"In the United States, if someone refers to the \"\"interest rate\"\", especially if heard on news or talk radio in particular, they are almost always referring to the federal funds rate, a rate set forth and maintained by the United States Federal Reserve (the \"\"fed\"\" for short). If the fed opts to raise or lower this rate, it subsequently effects all interest rates, whether by being directly connected in a chain of loans or by market demand through the efficiency of financial markets in the case of bond auctions. The FOMC meets eight times each year to determine the target for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate effects all interest rates because it is the originating rate of interest on all loans in the chain of loans. Because of this significance as a benchmark for all interest rates, it is the rate most commonly referred to as \"\"interest rate\"\" when used alone. That is why other rates are specified by what they actually are; e.g., mortgage rates; 10 year & 30 year (for 10 year treasury and 30 year treasury bond yields respectively); savings rate, auto rate, credit card rate, CD rate—all rates of interest effected by the originating loan that is the federal funds rate. This is true in the United States but will vary for other countries. In general though, it will almost always refer to the originating rate for all loans in a given country, institution, etc. Note that bonds have yields that are based on market demand that is, in turn, based on the federal funds rate. It is because of the efficiency of financial markets that the demand, and thus the yields, are correlated to the federal funds rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f27a728efa05f14ce56512f50cc4767",
"text": "The generic representative of interest rates is the 10 year treasury bond rate. (USA). As an approximation most other interest rates do tend to move up and down with the treasury rate, but with more or less sensitivity. Another prominently discussed interest rate is the short term loan rate established by the Federal Reserve for loans it makes to banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b949e7c4d790bedfd8add9e42eca3b2",
"text": "Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b7f04d94c8e7840ef8cb467b3b6f302",
"text": "\"When \"\"people say\"\", each person is referring to whatever he/she is looking at. Interest rates tend to move roughly the same, but often there is a bias regarding long vs. short term. In the US right now, short term interest rates are very low but there is a lot of chatter saying they will rise in the future. The differential between long term rates and short term rates is high compared to historical norms, suggesting that the market believes this chatter. You can also look at the differences in rates between different quality levels. If the economy is improving, the difference in rate for lower rated debt vs. higher rated debt decreases as people think the chance of businesses failing is decreasing. Right now, any interest rate you look at is well below long term historical averages, so asserting that interest rates are low is quite safe.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fa34b85c96df77350bbe15dc4f87d3f",
"text": "It refers to the risk free rate of a particular country. Because all other rates are usually pegged to the risk free rate. In US,it is the 30 day treasury rate. In England, it is the LIBOR In Canada, it is the overnight rate at which banks lend money to each other. All of these come under the category of risk free rate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "55a4f389f97a24cc60821597a105d24a",
"text": "In the EU, you might be looking for Directive 2000/35/EC (Late Payment Directive). There was a statutory rate, 7% above the European Central Bank main rate. However, this Directive was recently repealed by Directive 2011/7/EU, which sets the statutory rate at ECB + 8%. (Under EU regulations, Directives must be turned into laws by national governments, which often takes several months. So in some EU countries the local laws may still reflect the old Directive. Also, the UK doesn't participate in the Euro, and doesn't follow the ECB rate)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc563b09d7845ba930dae4a11756cd83",
"text": "> if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, You cannot really believe this. There is no sector more artificial than banking, and under the current regime there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans. Rates have been artificially depressed across the spectrum using every available manipulation, and we are experiencing a coordinated money-printing/government bailout operation on a global scale. To say that rates anywhere have any relation to the real cost and/or demand for capital is absurd.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa41ceaeab34d349a7792b63eb3d04d",
"text": "Question is, what is this number 0.01140924 13.69/12=0.01140924 In addition, how does one come out with the EIR as 13.69% pa? When calculating payments, PV = 9800, N=36 (months), PMT=333.47, results in a rate of 1.140924% per period, and rate of 13.69%/yr. No idea how they claim 7.5% In Excel, type =RATE(36,333.47,-9800,0,0) And you will get 1.141% as the result. 36 = #payments, 333.47 = payment per period, -9800 is the principal (negative, remember this) And the zeros are to say the payments are month end, second zero is the guess. Edit - I saw the loan is from a Singapore bank. It appears they have different rules on the rates they quote. As quid's answer showed the math, here's the bank's offer page - The EIR is the rate that we, not just US, but most board members, are used to. I thought I'd offer an example using a 30 year mortgage. Yo can see above, a 6% fixed rate somehow morphs into a 3.86% AR. No offense to the Singapore bankers, but I see little value in this number. What surprises me most, is that I've not seen this before. What's baffling is when I change a 15yr term the AP drops to less than half. It's still a 6% loan and there's nothing about it that's 2 percent-ish, in my opinion. Now we know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e25e337420c113aef3d69ee5b4815c3f",
"text": "Interest rates are always given annually, to make them comparable. If you prefer to calculate the rate or the total interest for the complete time, like 10 years or 15 years or 30 years, it is simple math, and it tells you the total you will pay, but it is not helpful for picking the better or even the right offer for your situation. Compare it to your car's gas mileage- what sense does it make to provide the information that a car will use 5000 gallons of gas over its lifetime? Is that better than a car that uses 6000 gallons (but may live 2 years longer?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aab39fc5fd7ac4fe676e73fe70b167da",
"text": "These are yields for the government bonds. EuroZone interest rates are much lower (10 times lower, in fact) than the UK (GBP zone) interest rates. The rates are set by the central banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd585fa26eeb5e188fb1aad4503d3bda",
"text": "Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%). Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher. Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high. We're currently at a three-year low. Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up. Eventually. Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall. It hasn't happened yet though. In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008). The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61cb9c5e05a58e02ffa8d0042bbf0613",
"text": "All unsubstantiated opinions. >there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans Really. No relation whatsoever? And your background in finance letting you understand this is what? Are you telling me every bank of the [7,213](http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/) independent banks are in cahoots and none of them compete based on prices and services? Can you give me precise evidence that all those independent banks are not in competition? What should the price be for capital if the current prices are incorrect, and tell me why.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb13206ea224b7582cf0d78ef5c3c875",
"text": "That's not what he's saying at all. Basically most of his argument (4 of 6 points) is the connection between bond prices and equity prices. It's not particularly interesting but it definitely doesn't always apply either. If bond yields fall, then so too should equity earnings yields if spreads remain relatively constant, i.e. higher equity prices. Additionally, if bond yields are low, then any future equity growth gets capitalized at a much higher value because discount rates are much lower. Again, not particularly insightful. The two interesting comments were about oil and cash as a % of assets at financial institutions. Both of these are likely linked to falling or low rates above, because banks can't invest profitably at low rates and hence hold cash and equivalents instead, and oil prices are more likely to fall in a low or falling inflation environment (implied by the low rates or Fed tightening). Really, I think hes's saying something more obvious but not necessarily trivial, which is if one asset class goes up, so too is another related one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "735cdacb94f03923d7db3c732b06db0f",
"text": "\"These rates are so low because the cost of money is so low. Specifically, two rates are near zero. The Federal Reserve discount rate, which is \"\"the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window.\"\" The effective federal funds rate, which is the rate banks pay when they trade balances with each other through the Federal Reserve. Banks want to profit on the loans they make, like mortgage loans. To do so, they try to maximize the difference between the rates they charge on mortgages and other loans (revenue), and the rates they pay savings account holders, the Federal Reserve or other banks to obtain funds (expenses). This means that the rates they offer to pay are as close to these rates as possible. As the charts shows, both rates have been cut significantly since the start of the recession, either through open market operations (the federal funds rate) or directly (the discount rate). The discount rate is set directly by the regional Federal Reserve banks every 14 days. In most cases, the federal funds rate is lower than the discount rate, in order to encourage banks to lend money to each other instead of borrowing it from the Fed. In the past, however, there have been rare instances where the federal funds rate has exceeded the discount rate, and it's been cheaper for banks to borrow money directly from the Fed than from each other.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3b5afd328987c700c1d17b985294334",
"text": "You'd likely be most familiar with them with respect to options and futures on commodities but they're used for credit/interest as well. The intrinsic value of an option is *derived* from the spread between call/put price and strike price; the value of the contract I've paid for or sold is derived from the current market value of the underlying asset, be it rice, platinum, or the Swedish kroner",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b605a216befe7244a88edea45dbd0315",
"text": "\"Let's talk interest rates on your junk bonds. Even after all that the US has been through (and is still going through), the United States dollar is widely regarded as one of the safest safe havens for your money. As such it serves as a de facto baseline against which all other investments can be measured, the bar everyone has to pass: if you could earn 4% on a 5-year US Treasury bond, or earn 4% on anything else over the next 5 years, you pick the Treasury bond. In many ways this means that the interest rate on a Treasury bond is the closest single measure we have to the price of money all by itself. If someone is loaning you money, they could be loaning it to the Treasury instead; they are losing out by making this loan to you, and must charge you at least this rate just to break even. But most people/governments/countries aren't as credit-worthy as the US Treasury. A few are (the US treasury isn't magical, after all, just really good at what it does), but generally they are not. There is a possibility when loaning money to these entities that you will not get your money back. That is risk. All entities have some risk (even the US treasury!), and some have more than others; \"\"junk bonds\"\" have a somewhat elevated level of this risk. Now, you don't just take a risk on for free (unless you're being charitable or something, but I hope you can find better beneficiaries of charity than the average junk bond). You need to be compensated for that risk. Lenders will demand compensation commensurate with that risk - or they will just walk away without making any loans or buying any bonds because it's not worth it. The difference between the interest rate on a US Treasury bond and the interest rate on another bond, such as a junk bond, is the risk premium - the cost of carrying that risk. Therefore you can see that the interest rate on a junk bond is the price of money plus the risk premium. Now, the Federal Reserve adjusts the price of money from time to time, by buying and selling US Treasury bonds until the price is something they like. This means that one component of interest rate on a junk bond is the interest rate on the US Treasury bond, and it is effectively controlled by the Federal Reserve (through that layer of indirection). The other component of the interest rate on a junk bond is the risk premium. It's not generally possible to know in advance whether or not some company will actually default. People have to guess, and decide how comfortable they are taking that risk. This means that risk is more expensive (and interest rates are higher) when they think the companies in question are going through some hard times, and risk will also be more expensive when people decide that they can't take as many risks (perhaps they've already lost some money and need to take additional steps to protect the rest). It's definitely very hard for an individual to decide what the risk on a particular bond is. The good news is that you generally don't have to. There are a bunch of rich jerks, hedge funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, and other investment entities out there who spend all day looking at things like bonds, trying to estimate the risk. Their willingness to exploit minuscule differences between the interest rate on a bond and the real risk means that the average bond on the market will be fairly priced, according to what all those people think. Plenty of them can still be wrong, mind you (cf. mortgage-backed securities) but in the general case the price of any security reflects all the information everyone in the world has on it on average, so if you're wrong you're in good company. When you buy a nice diversified bond fund, you have access to a bunch of bonds at a pretty-standard price. So that's interest rates for you. But you asked about prices. As it turns out, they're the same thing! - just expressed slightly differently. One way or another a bond is essentially meant to be a stream of payments worth a certain amount in the end - this is why you'll hear them referred to sometimes as a \"\"fixed-income security\"\". The interest rate is essentially the difference between the price you pay now, and the value you receive later, except expressed as a rate. Technically, you could structure the bonds differently (e.g. does the bond pay little bits of interest as you go along, or just pay one big lump sum in the end?) but you can use Math to convert between these two situations, and figure out how much money is worth which when, so it doesn't really matter. Anyway. This means that rising interest rates means lower bond prices on bonds you already own (and falling interest rates means higher bond prices). So if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates, the face value of your bond funds will fall. Also, if people think that the companies issuing the bonds are too risky, the face value of those bonds will also fall. (You were probably expecting the latter effect, though.) Mind you, you will still get the same amount of future money out of them as you would otherwise: that's why they're fixed-income securities. However, a higher interest rate means \"\"I can get more money in the future for less money now\"\", and so people will be willing to pay you less for your bond in the present. This is known as interest rate risk. It is higher on longer term bonds, because those have more time to earn interest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "028f0077a16460f918c8515dff3fc444",
"text": "I know that assets like bonds have prices that have an inverse relationship with interest rates, but what other assets do as well? I'm a bit new to finance and all that so I'm trying to learn. Would real estate prices be high as well? If so, why?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "955841b84a2ceb0d770b7292c6779ba2",
"text": "The prime rate is the interest rate banks use amongst themselves to lend money to each other only. It is used as the basis (sometimes) for what interest rate banks charge you. The prime rate is based loosely on the Fed rate. There is a committee that meets regularly to set this and other industry interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_rate I am not 100% positive the following is totally accurate The banks keep our deposits and pay us interest for doing so. They are paying us interest because they take yours, mine and everybody elses deposits as a large lump sum and invest that money. Sometimes as business loans, sometimes as mortgages and sometimes as credit card. The banks have a book of business that will be EXACTLY how much credit they have extended to everybody. But they do not keep that amount of cash in the vaults, only some smaller percentage of that large amount. When I use my credit card and they need to transfer money to amazon.com, if they don't happen to have enough cash that day, they will just borrow from another bank that does, and the interest rate they pay to do so is the prime rate. Since they are paying interest on the money they borrow to pay the debt I charged because they told me my credit was worth so much (...???...) they charge me a little bit more than that. Hence your credit card or mortgage's APR being based on the prime rate. I THINK that is what they do If I am wrong leave a comment and I will update, or the mods can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec7d7e5c5674d90ed20fb432879d9ef9",
"text": "That's just factually incorrect. Outright lying aside, the previously mentioned contraction is after after a 2.1% Q4 and clocked in just .2% below last year's national average (a five year low). Regardless of that tiny bit of logic, the Fed has forecast a 2.9% Q2. Full employment and highest consumer confidence in years are driving it. Even worse case in that article, the forecasts are above 2.5% for the next quarter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cd6fe269b21bef280e212439f3a5ae5",
"text": "The way I handle clothing purchases, is I save a little bit with each paycheck but don't commit to spending each month. I wait until I find the exact item I need or know I will need in the near future. I have a list of things to look for so I don't get off track and blow my budget. And each time I consider hitting Starbucks or buying a random something at Target, I think which is a better investment - a great pair of pants that will work for me for a decade, or a latte? Thank you for linking to me. Your question is one many people have. I feel that clothing should be purchased slowly, with care. If you do it this you will buy items that don't need to be replaced every two years, and will maintain style and quality longer. :)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e0ef380b4689f1cbbed203913b55df4c
|
Is it a good strategy to +cash out refi every six months?
|
[
{
"docid": "9360d30fe1116cbfbd238ffdb702853f",
"text": "\"When you refinance, there is cost (guess: around $2000-$3000) to cover lawyers, paperwork, surveys, deed insurance, etc. etc. etc. Someone has to pay that cost, and in the end it will be you. Even if you get a \"\"no points no cost\"\" loan, the cost is going to be hidden in the interest rate. That's the way transactions with knowledgeable companies works: they do business because they benefit (profit) from it. The expectation is that what they need is different from what you need, so that each of you benefits. But, when it's a primarily cash transaction, you can't both end up with more money. So, unless value will be created somewhere else from the process (and don't include the +cash, because that ends up tacked onto the principle), this seems like paying for financial entertainment, and there are better ways to do that.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6da16e402bf9c3b83f7e5d828925194f",
"text": "\"Pete and Noah addressed the math, showing how this is, in effect, converting a 30yr to a ~23yr mortgage, at a cost, plus payment about 8% higher (1 extra payment per year). No magic there. The real issue, as I see it, is whether this is the best use of the money. Keep in mind, once you pay extra principal, which in effect is exactly what this is, it's not easy to get it back. As long as you have any mortgage at all, you have the need for liquidity, enough to pay your mortgage, tax, utilities, etc, if you find yourself between jobs or to get through any short term crisis. I've seen people choose the \"\"sure thing\"\" prepayment VS the \"\"risky\"\" 401(k) deposit. Ignoring a match is passing up a 50% or 100% return in most cases. Too good to pass up. 2 points to add - I avoided the further tangent of the tax benefit of IRA/401(k) deposits. It's too long a discussion, today's rate for the money saved, vs the rate on withdrawal. Worth considering, but not part of my answer. The other discussion I avoid is Nicholas' thoughts on the long term market return of 10% vs today's ~4% mortgage rate. This has been debated elsewhere and morphs into a \"\"pre-pay vs invest\"\" question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88b894b25a236448abed0fcfb41d70d7",
"text": "$33K, $227 payment is 7.33%. But is that right? You're also stretching out the remaining loan back to 30 years. Now, if the bank just let you do the stretch, you'd owe $95K / 4.75% / 360 mo / PMT = $495.56 - this would be a neutral move, same rate. You now have: $128K / 5.625% / 360 / PMT = $737 so to my thinking, the delta is: $33K / X rate / 360 / PMT = $241.44 and the rate is 7.97% If you have enough equity to refi, you have enough to take that in a HELOC, and pay it off aggressively, why give up the great rate? The $227/mo you will pay the HELOC off in 22 years even at 6%. My HELOC is 2.5%. I'd use any raise or bonus to hack away at it. I tried to spell out my thought process on the math. If any savvy reader (you all are, I know) wants to look at this and offer a better method, I'm open minded. There's a fallacy that comes with refinancing, certainly money appears in the payment stream as a result of extending the term. Somewhere that needs to be accounted for, else a higher rate at a longer term appears favorable, so my approach is to normalize the numbers one way or another. Here, producing that first step of calculating the payment on the extended term (an interim step that's a mental process only, that loan is hypothetical). Comments welcome.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7273984eddd293655f31c16a89f3738c",
"text": "There's really no general rule of thumb. There are a lot of factors that go into that decision. It highly depends on the type of business, your financials and business strategy. It's a double edged sword because retained earnings lose the potential to provide a higher return. While being cash poor can easily kill a company. It sounds like you're experiencing significant growth. If there is high market potential and expansion prospects, a safe bet is to keep about 3 months of operating costs accessible while leveraging a bank loan to fund the growth. That's the best answer I can provide without having any information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "252746493a0e4309e5f8a4c89e7e6467",
"text": "I'll preface this with saying that I'm not a finance or real estate professional, this is just how I understand the situation and what I'm doing: We just got a 30year/FHA mortgage, there's no prepayment penalty, and no fees associated with paying it biweekly. In fact (Wells Fargo), while the payments get withdrawn biweekly, they don't actually post to the mortgage until there's enough for a full payment. So essentially here are the benefits I'm realizing:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5835cdf43d3d7b347105985be9325f4e",
"text": "I agree with the others that pulling the money out of your 401(k) is not the best idea due to the taxes and penalties. But I also think that a 401(k) loan is not a good option either. Somehow life happens, and the time when you can least afford to repay the loan (just after losing your job) will be the time when you have to repay the loan or pay the taxes and penalties. There's just too much risk there. You also lose the compounding gains you'd get from the investment, and it's likely not worth sacrificing your future retirement for this. It's probably worth finding out how close you are to having your house appraise out for a successful re-fi. Without that information, you're just guessing. Depending on how close you are, you pile up as much cash as you can over the next few months to try to pay down the mortgage enough to qualify for the re-fi. As you're doing this, if home values start coming up in your area, you'll have that going for you as well. It might even be worth suspending your 401(k) contributions for a short while to give you more cash to put towards the re-fi goal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "664a1d6644edbd790ea00236c238d1b9",
"text": "Nope, don't do it. Basic math shows this...as you pay down your HELOC, you will pay less and less interest, eventually you will have it paid off. Look at what your RRSP will be worth even using a low rate of return over the next 20 or 30 years. It will likely show that it would really cost you a LOT more if you cashed in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c83e47cb9631f83ce924a41ea510ae86",
"text": "\"You are suggesting that a 1% return per month is huge. There are those who suggest that one should assume (a rule of thumb here) that you should assume expenses of half the rent. 6% per year in this case. With a mortgage cost of 4.5% on a rental, you have a forecast profit of 1.5%/yr. that's $4500 on a $300K house. If you buy 20 of these, you'll have a decent income, and a frequently ringing phone. There's no free lunch, rental property can be a full time business. And very lucrative, but it's rarely a slam dunk. In response to OP's comment - First, while I do claim to know finance fairly well, I don't consider myself at 'expert' level when it comes to real estate. In the US, the ratio varies quite a bit from area to area. The 1% (rent) you observe may turn out to be great. Actual repair costs low, long term tenants, rising home prices, etc. Improve the 1.5%/yr to 2% on the 20% down, and you have a 10% return, ignoring appreciation and principal paydown. And this example of leverage is how investors seem to get such high returns. The flip side is bad luck with tenants. An eviction can mean no rent for a few months, and damage that needs fixing. A house has a number of long term replacement costs that good numbers often ignore. Roof, exterior painting, all appliances, heat, AC, etc. That's how that \"\"50% of rent to costs\"\" rule comes into play.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcbcbebeb0e6fc63a5f9ab0ae5e4448e",
"text": "\"Your question isn't great, but I will attempt to answer this piece as it seems really the root of your personal finance question: I want to convince my wife to make this move because it will save us at least 800 month, but she fails to see how buying a second home is financially sound because we have to lose our savings and we have to pay interest on our second home. And... Her logic is it will take almost 5 years to get back our down payment and we have to pay interest as well. So how can this move help our family financially in the long run? ... Is she right? She is mostly wrong. First, consider that there is no \"\"ROI\"\" really on your down payment. Assuming you are paying what your home would sell for the next day, then your \"\"RIO\"\" is already yours (minus realtor fees). She is talking about cash on hand, not ROI. I will use an example without taking into account risk of home markets going down or other risks to ownership. Example: Let's say you pay $2800 a month in mortgage interest+principle at 5.5% apr and $200 a month in taxes+insurance on a $360k loan ($400k house). In this example let's say the same house if you were to rent it is $3800 a month. Understand the Opportunity Cost of renting (the marginal amount it costs you to NOT buy). So far, your opportunity cost is $800 a month. The principle of your house will be increasing with each payment. In our example, it's about $400 for the first payment, and will increase with each payment made while decreasing the interest payment (Suggest you look at an amortization table for your specific mortgage example). So, you're real number is now $1200 a month opportunity cost. Consider also the fact that the $400 a month is sitting in a savings account of sorts. While most savings accounts give you less than 1% in returns and then charge taxes on that gain, your home may (or may not be) much higher than that and won't charge you taxes on the gains when you sell it (If you live in it for a period of time as defined by the IRS.) Let's assume a conservative long term appreciation rate of 3%. That's $12k a year on a $400k house. So, now you're at $2200 a month opportunity cost. In this example I didn't touch on your tax savings of ownership. I also didn't touch on the maintenance cost of ownership or the maintenance cost of renting (your deposit + other fees) which all should be considered. You may have other costs involved in renting. For instance: The cost of not being able to fully utilize your rental as your own house. This may be an even simpler and more convincing way to explain it: On the $2800 mortgage example, you will be paying around $19k in interest and $2400 on taxes, insurance = $23k per year (number could be way different in your example). That is basically throw away money you're never getting back. On the rental, 100% of your rent at $3800 a month is throw away money you're never getting back. That's $45,600 a year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f77f8854fdb229c38831d58f0a7ec59",
"text": "First problem I see is you'd be getting that rent per month, so you get 12% a year before taxes and related expenses. Loans will allow you to leverage your capital, so you can cover the mortgage payments with rent and still have money left over. Do this a couple times, and you can make serious money. Obviously, I don't know the specifics but this is just my viewpoint of RE in general. There could potentially be many downfalls.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8965f489cca99abdd4001c2050f1b79a",
"text": "I know this is heresy but if you have funds for significantly more than 6 months of expenses (let's say 12 months), how risky would it be to put it all into stock index funds? Quite risky as if you do need to dip into it, how fast could you get the cash? Also, do you realize the tax implications when you do sell the shares should you have an emergency? In the worst-case scenario, let's say you have a financial emergency at the same time the stock market crashes and loses half its value. You could still liquidate the rest and have sufficient funds for 6 months. Am I underestimating the risks of this strategy? That's not worst case scenario though. Worst case scenario would be another 9/11 where the markets are closed for nearly a week and you need the money but can't get the funds converted to cash in the bank that you can use. This is in addition to the potential wait for a settlement in the case of using ETFs if you choose to go that way. In the case of money market funds, CDs and other near cash equivalents these can be accessed relatively easily which is part of the point. A staggered approach where some cash is kept in house, some in accounts that can easily accessed and some in other investments may make sense though the breakdown would differ depending on how much risk people are willing to take. If it truly is an emergency fund then the odds of needing it should be very slim, so why live with near zero return on that money? Something to consider is what is called an emergency here? For some people a sudden $1,000 bill to fix their car that just broke down is an emergency. For others, there could be emergency trips to visit family that may have gotten into accidents or gotten a diagnosis that they may pass away soon. Consider what do you want to call an emergency here as chances are you may not be considering all that people would think is an emergency. There is the question of what other sources of money do you have to cover should issues arise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4337f65c2c443100a3f1bce1ce7805c",
"text": "Your wealth will go up if your effective rate after taxes is less than the inflation rate. That is, if your interest rate is R and marginal tax rate is T, then you need R*(1-T) to be less than inflation to make a loan worth it. Lately inflation has been bouncing around between 1% and 1.8%. Let's assume a 25% tax rate. Is your interest rate lower than between 1.3% and 2.4%? If not, don't take out a loan. Another thing to consider: when you take out a loan you have to do a ton of extra stuff to make the lender happy (inspections, appraisals, origination charges, etc.). These really add up and are part of the closing costs as well as the time/trouble of buying a house. I recently bought my house using 100% cash. It was 2 weeks between when I agreed to a price to when the deal was sealed and my realtor said I probably saved about $10,000 in closing costs. I think she was exaggerating, but it was a lot of time and money I saved. My final closing costs were only a few hundred, not thousands, of dollars. TL;DR: Loans are for suckers. Avoid if possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb9aa2dc9ef070f4af12702db6c0d4ac",
"text": "I'll be happy to edit when you provide answers to the question I posed in the comments. Given the choice (and I assume there is no other) I'd take a loan from the 401(k) vs a withdrawal. You withdraw $40K. I'll assume 25% bracket as you're planning at least a $200K house. Hopefully, your taxable income is above $38K, the 25% line for singles. The tax and penalty is 35% total, federal. You net $26K. And you have $40K less in the retirement account. In 40 years, at 10% average growth, that's $1.8M you won't have in your 401(k). And as littleadv stated, no deposits for 6 months, meaning no matching. There's a few more thousand you'll lose. You borrow $20K. Your 401(k) will see a return on the $20k that's better than the short bond account, 4-5% vs less than 1%. You are short $6K, but in return have paid no tax, no penalty, etc. I respect those who are strongly anti-loan, but even they would agree, this is the far lesser of 2 evils. The above is pretty generic, there are better choices. But your CPA friend's advice is nearly as bad as it gets. By the way, the tax you'll save once you have the mortgage has nothing to do with that 10% penalty. Say you bought the house with cash (as many would be happy to do). You'd pay the penalty for the 401(k) withdrawal, but have no mortgage deduction. If you had the 20%, you still have a loan and the deduction, but no penalty for taking his bad advice. My advice is to take that refund and use it to pay the loan faster.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac1b913c39ab30f29679bf9167b2f2b5",
"text": "Hope you figure it out. There wouldn't be a different RFR / discount rate because you're assuming a return on parked cash - that's what it's for. Since both situations would theoretically happen simultaneously you use the same rate unless you would do something different with cash in each instance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11f43f32825eead66ad9471abfbb0e4f",
"text": "Hmm, if your financially savvy enough to have saved up half a million dollars, I'd think you would be savvy enough to spend it wisely. :-) I think I'd spend the cash before running down stocks and bonds, as cash almost surely has a lower rate of return. I'd look into what rate of return you're getting on the rental property versus what you're getting from other investments. If the rental property has a lower return, I'd sell that before selling off stocks. (I own a rental property on which I am losing money every month. I'm still paying a mortgage on it, but even without that, the ROI would be about 4% under current market conditions.) Besides that, your plan looks good to me. Might need to add, 8. Beg on the streets, and 9. Burglary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e042485852dc24651d7e8ebc3a6289e4",
"text": "\"Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, \"\"ugh\"\") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b8beb97ea771eafbf6ead3c3f4d75a02
|
How can I get free or discounted checks for my bank account?
|
[
{
"docid": "edeccec132105acaf4d53566108ccb90",
"text": "There is no reason you must buy the bank's printed check. There are many places both physical stores and on line the offer check printing. From what I've seen, the requirement is the use of a magnetic ink the bank's equipment can properly scan. I may not even be correct there if they've all gone fully optical. The checks you buy on line are a fraction of the cost the bank would charge you. Edit - On searching, I find VistaPrint offers free checks. I've not ordered checks from them, but I suspect free orders require you pay shipping. I've used VistaPrint for business cards, promotional items, and holiday cards. I can say, I've been pleased with their quality. Update - The free checks from VistaPrint are no longer available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17d0dd730c0065910517603869862e3b",
"text": "\"Although not required, #2 would work best if you used magnetic ink... That is an extra cost which you may or may not want to pay for. You can often get a free checking account and a free set of checks if you can meet the minimum requirements. This often means a higher average daily balance, direct deposit, or some combination of multiple requirements. The bank is taking a risk that a client meeting those minimum requirements while likely earn the bank more in fees and services than what they give out for \"\"free\"\" such as the account and checks. My wife and I opened a Wells Fargo checking account two years ago. Back then, we were able to open the account for free along with a free set of 250 checks. I think the requirement now requires $7,500 average daily balance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df4baaa5568774bea88b5aba32f7b7d7",
"text": "First, if you live in/around a reasonably populated urban area, and you're in the United States, I can't see why you would choose to bank with Chase, B of A, or another large commercial bank. I think you would be much better served by banking at a reasonably large credit union. There are many differences between banks and credit unions, but in a nutshell, credit unions are owned by the members, and operate primarily to provide benefits to their members, whereas a bank is owned by the shareholders, and operates primarily to make profits for the shareholders (not to benefit the customers). The banking industry absolutely hates the credit unions, so if you've ever been nickeled-and-dimed with this fee and that charge by your bank, I have to ask why you're still banking with a company that irritates you and/or actively tries to screw you out of your money? I live in California, and I've banked at credit unions almost exclusively since I started working nearly 30 years ago. Every time I've strayed and started banking at a for-profit bank, I've regretted it. For example, a few years ago I opened a checking account at a now-defunct bank (WaMu) just for online use: eBay and so forth. It was a free checking account. When Chase bought WaMu, the account became a Chase account, and it seemed that every other statement brought new fees, new restrictions, and so forth. I finally closed it when they imposed some stupid fee for not carrying enough of a balance. I found out by logging in to their Web site and seeing a balance of zero dollars; they had imposed the fee a few statements back, and I had missed it, so they kept debiting my account until it was empty. At this point, I do about 90% of my banking at a fairly large credit union. I have a mortgage with a big bank, but that was out of my hands, as the lender/originator sold the mortgage and I had no say in the matter. My credit union has a highly functional Web site, permits me to download my account activity to Quicken, and even has mobile apps which allow me to deposit a check by taking a picture of it, or check my account activity, etc. They (my credit union) are part of a network of other credit unions, so as long as I am using a network ATM, I never pay a fee. In sum, I can't see any reason to go with a bank. Regarding checks, I write a small number of checks per year, but I recently needed to reorder them. My credit union refers members directly to Harland-Clarke, a major-league player in the check printing business. Four boxes of security checks was around $130 plus shipping, which is not small money. However, I was able to order the very same checks via Costco for less than half that amount. Costco refers members to a check printing service, which is a front/subsidiary of Harland-Clarke, and using a promo code, plus the discount given for my Costco membership, I got four boxes of security checks shipped to me for less than $54. My advice would be to look around. If you're a Costco member, use their check printing service. Wal*mart offers a similar service to anyone, as does Sam's Club, and you can search around to find other similar services. Bottom line, if you order your checks via your bank or credit union, chances are you will pay full retail. Shop around, and save a bit. I've not opened a new account at a credit union in some time, but I would not be surprised if a credit union offered a free box of checks when you open a new account with them.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4e67a63703b2ce3423d76eebfd689f7b",
"text": "The bottom line is something in your story is not adding up. You had two checks one that is voided, and one that is not. Lets say they are both written against your account for $100. Lets also assume that have exactly $100 in your account. You give the Liquor Store the voided one, they give you $100, but when they attempt to cash the check at their bank they are denied and assessed a $20 fee. You spend the $100 they gave you; however, you still should have $100 in your account as the check was not cashed. You want to make things right with the liquor store. You should be able to withdraw the $100 you still have in the bank and give them that much. While they will still be out the $20 fee, that should make them feel much better about you as a customer. Tell them when you will be paid and that you will give them the $20 on that date. Then do so. The only way this problem is not solvable is that you spent the $100 that was left in the bank. In that case, the Liquor store is correct you stole the money. More accurately you spent money that wasn't yours.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a96543e87a7d692090fe7441ce7b12c7",
"text": "I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90f4a09fd47702b34fd698aa96b6fdb0",
"text": "\"You can spend the money quite quickly. The problem is that if there is something wrong with the check, the bank will ask you for the money back. If the check is from a trusted source (a trusted friend, a business with good reputation etc.) that's fine. If the money is from an untrusted source, make sure that having to pay back the money doesn't get you into trouble. Since most people are honest, this is fine for a small amount, but if it's more than you can afford to pay back, don't spend it. A simple scam is that people send you checks, \"\"by mistake\"\" the check is for the wrong amount, say $910 instead of $190, and they ask you to send the difference back. So you put $910 into your account, send them $720, and six weeks later your bank asks for their $910 back. If someone pays you too much on a check and asks you to pay them the difference, you know it is a scam.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aa022f401826c82028f3335f5cd8c4d",
"text": "I'm going to give the checkmark to Joe, but I wanted to convey my personal experience. I bank with TD in New Jersey and was informed by the teller that I simply needed to endorse the check myself and indicate Parent of Minor. I cannot attest if other banks will accept this, but it at least works for TD and my situation in particular.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d90fea8919eaee4e7a4053d3661257cb",
"text": "You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c2287b7bbb82a213d5afb5d8926b4fd",
"text": "You could write a personal check after the final price has been set and you're ready to purchase. Another option would be to get the final price - then walk over to your bank and get a cashier's check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0df4c9f2930e72408863d2d65f19c3d4",
"text": "A routing number and account number are on the bottom of every check. If anybody who ever handled your checks or even saw your checks could just withdraw as much money as they wanted, the whole banking system would need to be reworked. In short, just having that info is not enough. Not legally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed19a528140148b687404d864b48cb36",
"text": "\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3849e3003518435903391eaf972f235",
"text": "The paper check method also allows the bank to use your money while the check is in the mail. My bank debits my account immediately, so while my $100 utility bill is traveling the U.S. Postal System for two days, they can make use of my $100 in whatever slush fund they like.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa1f2198f2b2841062db955e8b4bbd2",
"text": "When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4be9577a4007b8e6fa6001cd6834502",
"text": "This question was asked three years ago, but now that it's 2017 there is actually a relatively easy, cheap and fast solution to at least the first half of your question. To cash the check: I've done this a half dozen times while abroad (from the US) without any problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22d7742a2b993821a7cebeef9029d984",
"text": "Additionally, it used to be the case that savings accounts would have a noticeably higher interest than checking accounts (if the checking account paid any at all). So you would attempt to maximize your cash working for you by putting as much as you could into the savings account and then only transferring out what you needed to cover bills, etc into the checking account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1144cfaa87b538d2965dbacc3eff749b",
"text": "No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "302019998d8505c3d4064045d88f4dcc",
"text": "TD Bank (Northeast US) has free change counting machines at its branches. You don't have to have an account to use them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fb9aa8d4e4bb2f455a40c424889d31e",
"text": "Given you mention a check clearing, in addition to debit card holds as JoeTaxpayer notes, you may also have funds that are on hold for that reason. While the bank may have stated it would be a one day hold, some banks may mean business days (Monday-Friday), and so it will become available on Monday. This is because checks are not always instantly withdrawn from the other account (although this is becoming much more common post-electronic check reform), so the bank wants to make sure it actually is getting the money from the check; after all, if the check you deposited bounces, the bank doesn't want to end up footing the bill. The bank allows you some portion up front, largely as a customer service; the amount varies from bank to bank, but it's generally a small amount they don't mind risking. $200 is a pretty good amount, actually; back when I was just out of college and frequently spending the last $50 in my account, the pre-clearance amount was usually $50. If the bank does this to you regularly and you feel that it is unfair in how long it holds checks, you might consider shopping around; different banks have different hold policies, or might allow you a larger amount up front. In particular, online banks tend to have more favorable terms this way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
60d9ce2bf7b458503323f4c3ba6a6491
|
1000 pound to invest
|
[
{
"docid": "f4bd63cfd882adcf0dc880fd46b13a69",
"text": "Depending what your timeframe preferences are, here are a couple of options: Stock indexes: as per Fool's investing guide, historically this had the highest return / risk ratio. On a 5-year horizont, with no extra work, this seems the best option. Premium bonds, similar to most cash ISAs currently available, have a rather rubbish ROI ATM (~3-5% AER at max) Invest it into yourself, in the form of personal development, classes & courses, or starting a business. Disadvantage: this also will carry an opportunity cost in the form of your time. On a longer timeline, however, if this improves your market value only by 1%, that pays extreme dividends over the rest of your carrier. With a single grand at hand, I'd definitely recommend going for option 3 -considering yourself as an investing vehicle, and ask yourself: how can you best improve stakeholder value? You'd be surprised at the kind of results a single grand can make.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc13b77121e726d4bd44e842f8bf0db8",
"text": "ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f03ab3bf6064ae72ee8f79afd2225323",
"text": "\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \"\"invest in knowledge\"\".\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "721e2da6d1dd2e44f93811e7378c9a42",
"text": "Basically the first thing you should do before you invest your money is to learn about investing and learn about what you want to invest in. Another thing to think about is that usually low risk can also mean low returns. As you are quite young and have some savings put aside you should generally aim for higher risk higher return investments and then when you start to reach retirement age aim for less risky lower return investments. In saying that, just because an investment is considered high risk does not mean you have to be exposed to the full risk of that investment. You do this by managing your risk to an acceptable level which will allow you to sleep at night. To do this you need to learn about what you are investing in. As an example about managing your risk in an investment, say you want to invest $50,000 in shares. If you put the full $50,000 into one share and that share price drops dramatically you will lose a large portion of your money straight away. If instead you spent a maximum of $10,000 on 5 different shares, even if one of them falls dramatically, you still have another 4 which may be doing a lot better thus minimising your losses. To take it one step further you might say if anyone of the shares you bought falls by 20% then you will sell those shares and limit your losses to $2000 per share. If the worst case scenario occurred and all 5 of your shares fell during a stock market crash you would limit your total losses to $10,000 instead of $50,000. Most successful investors put just as much if not more emphasis on managing the risk on their investments and limiting their losses as they do in selecting the investments. As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation.",
"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": "b53f7aa9e406ea773a4b45621660c971",
"text": "Your first home can be up to £450,000 today. But that figure is unlikely to stay the same over 40 years. The government would need to raise it in line with inflation otherwise in 40 years you won't be able to buy quite so much with it. If inflation averages 2% over your 40 year investment period say, £450,000 would buy you roughly what £200,000 would today. Higher rates of inflation will reduce your purchasing power even faster. You pay stamp duty on a house. For a house worth £450,000 that would be around £12,500. There are also estate agent's fees (typically 1-2% of the purchase price, although you might be able to do better) and legal fees. If you sell quickly you'd only be able to access the balance of the money less all those taxes and fees. That's quite a bit of your bonus lost so why did you tie your money up in a LISA for all those years instead of investing in the stock market directly? One other thing to note is that you buy a LISA from your post tax income. You pay into a pension using your pre-tax income so if you're investing for your retirement then a pension will start with a 20% bonus if you're a lower rate taxpayer and a whopping 40% bonus if you're a higher rate taxpayer. If you're a higher rate taxpayer a pension is much better value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bef842658c344351cd69313550198b3",
"text": "\"First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. \"\"Best\"\" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several \"\"discount\"\" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afb4e4a37f3f6133905d174f36e03ee3",
"text": "Well, the potential problem is that the FTSE 100 could go down, or just not up. Really, it's as simple as that. After all, why diversify if the FTSE 100 will only go up? So, the question is, why wait to diversify? Why not add in the Gilt ETF for a little government bond exposure? Why not a Corp. bond ETF? Maybe a little of that Global ex-UK for a little foreign stock exposure? That said, saving is better than not saving, so if starting it off with just the FTSE 100 gets you saving, go for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bf6f4f6b37e19854675b9535de8de01",
"text": "\"Historically that 'divide by 1000' rule of thumb is what many people in Australia have thought of as normal, and yes, it's about a 5.2% gross yield. Net of expenses, perhaps 3-4%, without allowing for interest. If you're comparing this to shares, I think the right comparison is to the dividend yield, not to the overall PE. A dividend yield of about 3-5% is also about typical: if you look at the Vanguard Index Australian Shares Fund as a proxy for the ASX the yield last year was about 4%. Obviously a 4% return is not very competitive with a term deposit. But with both shares and housing you can hope for some capital growth in addition to the income yield. If you get 4% rental yield plus 5% growth it is more attractive. Is it \"\"good\"\" to buy at what people have historically thought was \"\"normal\"\"? Perhaps you are better off looking around, or sitting out, until you find a much better price than normal. \"\"Is 5% actually historically normal?\"\" deserves a longer answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71edadf0bf5e87a03ff97820bd72cee1",
"text": "50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3dc2476ab41b785e705976afa3e7f65",
"text": "The 1.09% is per year, not per month, so you will be getting about 1K per year just for sitting around on your backside. Some important things. It is almost certain that you can earn a better interest rate elsewhere, if you are prepared to leave your 100K untouched. For example, even in Natwest you can earn 3.2% over the next year if you buy a fixed rate bond. For 100K that is certainly worth looking at. Or maybe put 90K in a fixed rate bond and leave 10K in an instant access account. Taxes should not be a problem since you can earn around 7K before you start paying taxes. However be aware that in the UK most bank accounts deduct tax at source. That means they send the tax they think you should have paid to the government, and you then have to claim it back from them. Accounts for young people may work differently. Ask your bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61d870d17ab65aec49138b9d09a8f1b3",
"text": "Only 20, and going through university This is an important question to ask yourself. Your earnings are 0 and will remain so, unless you start working. Are you willing to halve your money, if the markets tank after you put in your money ? Mostly good investors will buy some more, if they know the stocks they have picked are good. Considering that you have no income you will loose out on it. If you are graduating soon, it might make sense to start investing but it should be reliant on the fact on how quickly you will land a job. I would suggest stay put in the ISA for the time being. Check out if you might get a higher rate of interest if possible and transfer there. Check out Moneysupermarket . Don't blindly put money in a ISA, see if you are getting the best deal in the market. And one thing, interest on ISA is calculated daily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01bfef7eb36808691beb9f1d8e5b1480",
"text": "\"In the UK there are Premium Bonds, http://www.nsandi.com/. In simple terms these get you a \"\"raffle ticket\"\" for each £1 you invest. Each month multiple tickets are drawn and they each win between £25 and £1m. Your capital does not go down but you aren't guaranteed to win. So you can't lose your money but there's potential to not make any either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd10a69b01f073d534e36116efede61d",
"text": "\"I haven't used transfer wise, so can't speak to their price. Regardless of what service you use, what you should look for is whether the conversion price is greater than how much you think the currency's price will move. Example: if your bank charges ~8% on any currency exchange, you should ask yourself whether you think the pound (or whatever currency) will drop by >8% within whatever time frame you've set for yourself. If not, you're better off keeping your money in that currency. I checked out their site and it does look like transferwise is pretty inexpensive, around .9% in transaction costs. So again, ask yourself whether you think the pound will drop by 1% in your time frame. Doesn't seem like a lot, but also consider that currencies typically fluctuate by just a few tenths of a percentage per day. I know you're probably looking for an answer like \"\"pound will drop, sell it all,\"\" but I don't know enough about currencies to be giving advice there. I would definitely pay attention to Brexit negotiations though, as that will be one of the biggest influences on both currencies for quite some time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "470fb0038dad4dcaeae56f7574442cb8",
"text": "This is not an answer to all of your questions but merely an eleaboration on one of your comments: Are there any other areas in the UK that would return rental yields much above 10% net? Shares. I could withdraw the money and buy shares for the dividend income, but it is hard to choose shares that yield more than about 6% and they are volatile. I wrote a post about using shares to invest a pension pot. http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/016/ You may find it of some interest. Of course, the investing would take place within the pension 'wrapper' so you'd only be paying tax on the income taken out each year. The other alternatives you mention suggest paying for the expertise and time of an IFA would be a very economical decision. £1,000 to best use £150,000 seems a bargain to me. Some of the avenues you mention seem very risky from my understanding so someone to determine your tolerances and propose a holistic solution is a good path forward. Best wishes!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a12fe6fd848eb301007de2c233b13e27",
"text": "There are hundreds if not thousands of index funds and ETFs in the EU, far too many to enumerate here. It's worth pointing out that Vanguard themselves operate in the UK. The minimum investment if you go direct to Vanguard is £100,000, but you can make smaller investments through a number of fund platforms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb87f734f496f7e34c6823d06400e3c0",
"text": "If I were you, I would save 200 euros for retirement each month and another 800 I would stash away with the hope to start investing soon. I think you have to invest a bigger lump sum, then 1000 euros. It makes sense to invest at least 30K to see any tangible results. My acquaintances started from 50K and now see pretty handsome returns. Investing is profitable, as long as you approach it smartly. Also, do not ever hire an overly expensive financial consultant - this expenses will never pay off. Of course, check their credentials and reputation... But never pay much to these guys. Not worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "168c75be45ba473b7391fb8a0554acb8",
"text": "Not if the bonuses are also on a grid. At my work it's the same way -- you get paid a certain amount for every year of tenure you have at the company (outside experience generally doesn't count) and then the bonus varies depending on how your performance rating goes. Everybody knows what the bonus levels are.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8ffb08aafb87bbae3b2b5b6bc30b4f37
|
Add $5000 to existing retirement account
|
[
{
"docid": "cbbfc879484a5c782cd5cbeb1f9eb132",
"text": "You cannot contribute directly to that 401k account if you no longer work at the sponsoring company - you have to be on their payroll. You can, however, roll the 401k over into an IRA, and contribute to the IRA. Note that in both cases, you are only allowed to contribute from earned income (which includes all the taxable income and wages you get from working or from running your own business). As long as you are employed (and have made more than $5k this year) you should have no problem. I am not certain whether contributing your $5k to a roth IRA would help you achieve your tax goals, someone else here certainly can advise.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f2d276543022a55432fd12a4a3a3647c",
"text": "You do not need to have 'high net value', and yes, you can invest in it. Typically, fund companies require a minimum investment, that could be 100, it could be a 1000. 5000 should be enough for 99.9 % of all funds for an initial investment. What you need is an investment company that manages the account for you. I cannot name those for your country, but they should be easy to find (companies like IMG, and Fidelity might serve your country). You then open an account with the company of your choice, transfer the money, and tell them which fund it shall go in; all this is possible online. You can also go to see an agent in person, and he will fill the forms for you, and handle all the action, but he might take a fee for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1fef638e2048f8124f66b42fa701b0c",
"text": "One year is short term -- short enough that trying to predict returns is a crap shoot. Frankly, if you will need the money in one year I wouldn't touch anything riskier than a money market account. $5000 also isn't enough to give you much flexibility in achieving a balanced portfolio, since the minimal initial purchase for mutual funds is often around $2500. (I'm not sure whether ETFs would give you any more flexibility.) So on grounds of both size and time horizon, I have to recommend against this plan. The risk of losing money, with insufficient time for gains to balance that risk, is simply too high. Others may feel differently, of course. But that's the best advice I can offer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980789da5abf6464c0e7ff07ef72bc5e",
"text": "\"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \"\"penalty\"\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \"\"need it\"\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \"\"hopeful\"\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \"\"tax\"\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2164e8c58b0d0fb51e5b3005e5e0fb0b",
"text": "Okay thanks, let's hope it's a relatively painless process to correct my mistake! Really odd that my 401(k)s are traditional, I was so sure they weren't. Maybe it's better then to open up a traditional IRA alongside the Roth, use that for rollovers, and just kick a few bucks into the Roth on occasion?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecbb38a40d15f158007fdd49127c49bb",
"text": "As you move toward retirement, your portfolio is supposed to move toward low risk, stable investments, more bonds, less stocks, etc. Your question implies that you want to increase your income, most likely because your income is not satisfying your desires. First, any idea that you have that risks your savings, just eliminate it. You are not able to replace those savings. The time for those kind of plays has passed. However, you can improve your situation. Do random odd jobs. Find a part time job that you're willing to do for 10 hours a week or something. Keep this money separate from your retirement savings. Research the stock trades you would like to make and use that 'extra' money to play in the market. Set a rule that you do not touch your nest egg for trading. You may find that being retired gives you the time to do the #1 thing that helps investors make good investments -- research. Then when you make your first million doing this, write a book. If you call it Retire - And Then Get Rich, I expect royalties and a dedication.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "805eb47b11cca78c00063830acd132c6",
"text": "\"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3902ff75b95b17d3da9bb9b7e00e3bdb",
"text": "\"If you have enough earned income to cover this amount you should be all set. If I understand you correctly you proposed two transactions. The first, a withdrawal from the beneficiary IRA. Some of which is an RMD the rest is an extra withdrawal of funds. Next, you propose to make a deposit to a combination of your IRA and your wife's IRA. As long as there's earned income to cover this deposit, your plan is fine. To be clear, you can't \"\"take a bene IRA and deposit the RMD to an IRA.\"\" But, money is fungible, the dollars you deposit aren't traceable, only need to be justified by enough earned income. A bene IRA is a great way to get the money to increase your own IRA or 401(k) deposits. Further details - The 2016 contribution limit is $5,500 per person, so I did make the assumption you knew the $9000 deposit need to be split between the 2 IRAs, with no more than $5500 going into either one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c482006f8489cde9c9aefd43a46e4d17",
"text": "I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year. The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund. So your savings should be around $5k. Build that first. Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income. Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses. Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much. And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact. If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up). Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures. Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase. So you need more savings. By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money. Doesn't really change the basic analysis though. Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings. If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year. That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard. So you probably shouldn't invest next year. With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year). That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app. You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock. If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app. You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system. If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds. The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term. Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system. As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same. At some point, users saturate the app. All the possible returns are realized. Then users are competing with each other for returns. The per user returns will shrink as usage grows. If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it. Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria. Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued. The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy.",
"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": "b17a1ff59fd357e8f5432284fe5ff16a",
"text": "\"This may be a lame answer, but the best IRA contribution strategy is the one that will actually stick to. A single lump sum contribution every year may be a difficult thing for you to maintain. When it's time to make your contribution, you may say \"\"eh, $5000 is a lot of money, and my checking account balance is kinda low, I'll wait before I contribute\"\". You keep putting it off, and then you miss the opportunity for the year. If you setup small regular automatic withdrawals, your IRA contribution will run on auto-pilot. Depending on your cash flow, this may not be favorable, though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d530f2b6588cb43271a67fa236e2bc7c",
"text": "You can put them in a 5 years CD and getting a maximum of %2.5 APY if you're lucky. If you put 15k now, in 5 years you'll have $1.971. If it sounds good then take a look at the current inflation rate (i'm in usa)... If you want to think about retirement then you should open a Roth IRA. But you won't be able to touch the money without penalties (10% of earnings) before you get 59 1/2 years old. Another option would be to open a regular investment account with an online discounted broker. Which one? Well, this should be a totally separate question... If you decide to invest (Roth IRA or regular account) and you're young and inexperienced then go for a balanced mutual fund. Still do a lot of research to determine your portfolio allocation or which fund is best suited for you. Betterment (i never used it) is a no brainer investment broker. Please don't leave them in a generic checking or low interest savings account because you'll save nothing (see inflation again)...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6347a4f709beea994927b81af00ec999",
"text": "Short answer is fund a Roth. If you are under 50 then you can put in $5500 or $6500 if you are older. Great to have money in two buckets one pre tax and one post tax. Plus you can be aggressive putting money in it because you can always take money you put in the Roth out of the Roth with no tax or penalty. Taxes are historically low so it makes a lot of sense to diversify your retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6538420ebb658089269e61fa9012a091",
"text": "Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cd60ad2ae043e9c944af2dfb322ec67",
"text": "Congratulations on deciding to save for retirement. Since you cite Dave Ramsey as the source of your 15% number, what does he have to say about where to invest the money? If you want to have instantaneous penalty-free access to your retirement money, all you need to do is set up one or more ordinary accounts that you think of as your retirement money. Just be careful not to put the money into CDs since Federal law requires a penalty of three months interest if you cash in the CD before its maturity date (penalty!) or put the money into those pesky mutual funds that charge a redemption fee (penalty!) if you take the money out within x months of investing it where x can be anywhere from 3 to 24 or more. In Federal tax law (and in most state tax laws as well) a retirement account has special privileges accorded to it in that the interest, dividends, capital gains, etc earned on the money in your retirement account are not taxed in the year earned (as they would be in a non-retirement account), but the tax is either deferred till you withdraw money from the account (Traditional IRAs, 401ks etc) or is waived completely (Roth IRAs, Roth 401ks etc). In return for this special treatment, penalties are imposed (in addition to tax) if you withdraw money from your retirement account before age 59.5 which presumably is on the distant horizon for you. (There are some exceptions (including first-time home buying and extraordinary medical expenses) to this rule that I won't bother going into). But You are not required to invest your retirement money into such a specially privileged retirement account. It is perfectly legal to keep your retirement money in an ordinary savings account if you wish, and pay taxes on the interest each year. You can invest your retirement money into municipal bonds whose interest is free of Federal tax (and usually free of state tax as well if the municipality is located in your state of residence) if you like. You can keep your retirement money in a sock under your mattress if you like, or buy a collectible item (e.g. a painting) with it (this is not permitted in an IRA), etc. In short, if you are concerned about the penalties imposed by retirement accounts on early withdrawals, forgo the benefits of these accounts and put your retirement money elsewhere where there is no penalty for instant access. If you use a money management program such as Mint or Quicken, all you need to do is name one or more accounts or a portfolio as MyRetirementMoney and voila, it is done. But those accounts/portfolios don't have to be retirement accounts in the sense of tax law; they can be anything at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ca387b896dec855ad681eb1d9ab8944",
"text": "First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
161ac74dea913aaacf75b168cb5e1c83
|
Is the address on 1040 and MD resident 502 my previous address in 2013 or my current address?
|
[
{
"docid": "3570202a951e258e2aedec8c92052c66",
"text": "No, always give the most current address information to the IRS, not least because they will use this address to send you important communications, such as refund checks or notices of deficiency. Per the 1040 Instructions, you should put in your address, with no mention of past addresses. Moreover, if you will change addresses after filing, the IRS has provided Form 8822 to notify them of the new address. There is a similar Form 8822-B for business addresses. They will use your Social Security Number (SSN), Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), or Employer Identification Number (EIN) to track who you are. There's no point to purposely giving an invalid address, and in fact it's technically illegal since you will sign and certify the return as true and accurate to the best of your knowledge.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4d8e6721496b0d8ad288f2a00eb81a13",
"text": "It matters because that is the requirement for the 83(b) selection to be valid. Since the context is 83(b) election, I assume you got stocks/options as compensation and didn't pay for them the FMV, thus it should have been included in your income for that year. If you didn't include the election letter - I can only guess that you also didn't include the income. Hence - you lost your election. If you did include the income and paid the tax accordingly, or if no tax was due (you actually paid the FMV), you may try amending the return and attaching the letter, but I'd suggest talking to a professional before doing it on your own. Make sure to keep a proof (USPS certified mailing receipt) of mailing the letter within the 30 days window.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71895907b50a404d9be614264fbc3feb",
"text": "I did the reverse several years ago, moving from NH to MA. You will need to file Form 1-NR/PY for 2017, reporting MA income as a part-year residence. I assume you will need to report the April capital gain on your MA tax return, as you incurred the gain while a MA resident. (I am not a lawyer or tax professional, so I don't want to state anything about this as a fact, but I would be very surprised if moving after you incurred the gain would have any affect on where you report it.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07b529c7d2395c26971e103a1982d34f",
"text": "While I agree with keshlam@ that the gym had no reason (or right) to ask for your SSN, giving false SSN to obtain credit or services (including gym membership) may be considered a crime. While courts disagree on whether you can be charged with identity theft in this scenario, you may very well be charged with fraud, and if State lines are crossed (which in case of store cards is likely the case) - it would be a Federal felony charge. Other than criminal persecution, obviously not paying your debt will affect your credit report. Since you provided false identity information, the negative report may not be matched to you right away, but it may eventually. In the case the lender discovers later that you materially misrepresented information on your mortgage application - they may call on your loan and either demand repayment in full at once or foreclose on you. Also, material misrepresentation of facts on loan application is also a criminal fraud. Again, if State lines are crossed (which in most cases, with mortgages they are), it becomes a Federal wire fraud case. On mortgage application you're required to disclose your debts, and that includes lines of credits (store cards and credit cards are the same thing) and unpaid debts (like your gym membership, if its in collection).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eeebc508bfefe111c46e84ce20a5dafe",
"text": "I heard from someone that since my friends are moving money to my account, I'm liable to be taxed by the IRS Not completely true. If there are large deposits in your account, you may be asked for clarification from IRS. If there is a reasonable justification; in your case the agreement that you are sharing the apartment, the lease deed has all the 3 names, there is explicit mention in lease about how funds are transferred. Note at times the audit maybe in future for quite a bit of past. Hence you would need to keep the record for quite some time. Alternative arrangements like opening a joint account and making payments from that account may make it easier from record keeping point of view.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe7d85584eb8be5e581108158378f96d",
"text": "If it is your primary residence and you lived there continuously and for more than 2 years out of the last 5 - then you can exclude the gain under the IRC Sec. 121. In this case, you'll pay no taxes on your gain. If the property has been a rental or you haven't lived there long enough, the rules become more complicated but you may still be able to exclude some portion of the gain, even all of it, depends on the situation. So it doesn't look like 1031 exchange is good for you here, you don't want to carry excluded gain - you want to recognize it and get the tax benefit. However, refinancing after purchase with cash-out money affects the deductability of the loan interest. You can only deduct interest on money used to buy, not cash-out portion. I believe there's a period (60 days IIRC) during which you can do the cash-out refinance and still count it as purchase money, but check with a licensed tax advier (EA/CPA licensed in your State).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feef8b5a56c1bdc4e84ebce030281578",
"text": "It is also possible that the settlement company didn't tell the local government where to send the new tax bill. This would worry me because what else was missed regarding filing the proper documents with the lenders and the local government. It could also be a problem with the local government. Contact the settlement company or your attorney to get the issue resolved. If you owe the money you want to know; if the new owner owes the money they don't want to face a tax lien because the settlement company made a mistake. Generally this is split between the parties based on the number of days each will own the home. At settlement the money should move from one party to the other based on what has been deposited into escrow and when the actual bills are due. For example the payment for the first half of the year due July 1st may be sent in June. If the settlement was in June The new owner would give money to the old owner. But if settlement was in early July Money would move the other way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0882286a3e1d74b65a3bac64fc370be1",
"text": "I think you should consult a professional with experience in 83(b) election and dealing with the problems associated with that. The cost of the mistake can be huge, and you better make sure everything is done properly. For starters, I would look at the copy of the letter you sent to verify that you didn't write the year wrong. I know you checked it twice, but check again. Tax advisers can call a dedicated IRS help line for practitioners where someone may be able to provide more information (with your power of attorney on file), and they can also request the copy of the original letter you've sent to verify it is correct. In any case, you must attach the copy of the letter you sent to your 2014 tax return (as this is a requirement for the election to be valid).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e274ec175a07406b483bff494df6ebd",
"text": "\"This may be relevant: it suggests that IRS is lenient with the attachment of the form with 1040. To paraphrase: \"\"The ruling involved a taxpayer who timely filed the election with the IRS within 30 days of the property transfer but who did not attach a copy of the election to his or her Form 1040 for the year of the transfer. Fortunately for the taxpayer in question, the ruling indicated that the submission of the election to the IRS within 30 days of the property transfer fulfilled the requirements for a valid election, and the failure to attach the copy to the tax return did not affect the validity of the election. The IRS requested that the taxpayer forward a copy of the election to the IRS to be associated with the processing of the tax return. - See more at: http://www.bnncpa.com/services/employee_benefit_plans/blog/irs_rules_that_failure_to_attach_83b_election_to_form_1040_did_not_invalida#sthash.0c3h2nJY.dpuf\"\" If someone wants to grok the IRS ruling: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1405008.pdf And this is the article where I saw the above referenced. www.bnncpa.com/services/employee_benefit_plans/blog/irs_rules_that_failure_to_attach_83b_election_to_form_1040_did_not_invalida\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "856cabe1bfe439b5cf2a54cd3bd6375d",
"text": "\"I have no personal knowledge of this company; I've only looked over what I found on the web. Overall, my judgement is that Pension Benefit Information, Inc. of San Rafael, CA is likely legitimate and aboutmyletter.com is one of two sites run by them (the other being pbinfo.com). These two sites are registered to Pension Benefit Information, Inc. (aboutmyletter uses Network Solutions privacy service but gives the company name; pbinfo uses their name and San Rafael address.) They are in the BBB. The president (of the 8 employee Co.), Susan McDonald, has testified (PDF on .gov site) before Congress about business uses of SSNs. They made a (very schlocky) video, which has an interview with McDonald after several canned, generic, \"\"impressive\"\" introductions. I found the interview convincing of a person actually running a small, real business of this type. A short version is on their site, long version here. There are some queries about their legitimacy online (like this one), but I found nothing negative on them, and one somewhat positive. One article talks about the suspicions they run into when contacting participants, and has some advice. Also, scammers are unlikely to pay the U.S. Postal Service money to send paper letters. So what are the dangers? Money or identity. So don't pay them any fees (now or later), especially since it looks like their clients (retirement funds) pay on the other side. As for identity information: What's in the letter? Don't they show that they already know a bunch about you? Old employer? Maybe the last four digits of your SSN? Your address (if this is not the forwarded-by-IRS type of contact letter). Other things, maybe? What information would you be giving up if you did respond to them fully? You could try contacting your old company directly (mentioning PBI, Inc,), although on their website PBI says you'll have to go through them. (They probably get paid for each successful contact, and deserve it.) Still, responding through mail or telephone to PBI seems like the reasonable thing to do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b6a35f1951cf41e56a1603955d3ac58",
"text": "As I have worked for H&R Block I know for a fact that they record all your activity with them for future reference. If it is their opinion that you are obligated to use their service if you use some other service then this, most likely, will affect your future dealings with them. So, ask yourself this question: is reducing their income from you this year worth never being able to deal with them again in future years? The answer to that will give you the answer to your question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fabde7d45795614312a71467bc92b461",
"text": "\"It is legal. They're probably going to give you a 1099-MISC, which is required of businesses for many cash payments over $600 in value to all sorts of counterparties. (Probably box 3 of 1099-MISC as is typical in \"\"cash for keys\"\" situations where one is paid to vacate early) A 1099-MISC is not necessarily pure income, but in this case, you do have money coming in. This money isn't a return of your security deposit or a gift. The payment could possibly be construed by you as a payment to make you whole, but the accounting for this would be on you. This is not a typical situation for IRS reporting. However, if you are uncomfortable with potentially explaining to the IRS how you implemented advice from strangers over the internet, the safest course is to report it all as income. Look at it this way: you did enter into a mutual contract, where you were paid consideration to release your leasehold interests in the property.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e315fc91c8c4152825de79bf564a253f",
"text": "I will preface saying that I only have personal experience to go on (purchased home in KS earlier this year, and have purchased/sold a home in AR). You do not give the seller the document stating the amount you have been approved for. Your real estate agent (I recommend having one if you don't) will want to see it to make sure you will actually be able to purchase a house though. But the contract that is sent to the Seller states the total purchase price you are willing to pay and how much of that will be financed. Link to blank KS real estate contract shows what would be listed. Looks like it is from 2012 - it is similar to the one I had back in March, but not exactly the same format.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f468352bff9034dc8d747feea06a9d3c",
"text": "\"I know nothing about this stuff. Am I in trouble? You might be. If you don't file your return the IRS may \"\"make up\"\" one for you based on the (partial) information they have. Then they'll assess taxes and penalties and will go after you to pay those. Will I be hit with interest/penalties? You may if any money is owed. You may also lose the refund if you wait for too long (3 years after the due date). You may also be hit with the penalties for non-filing/late filing by your State. Not owing to IRS doesn't mean you also don't owe to the State - you can get hit with interest and late payment penalties there too. He has all my paperwork (I probably have copies... somewhere...) Should I go somewhere else and start fresh? He must return all the original paperwork you gave him. He can be disbarred if he doesn't. If you did 2013 yourself - what was significantly different in 2012 that you couldn't do yourself? If nothing - then just do it yourself and be done with it. You can buy 2012 preparation software at very deep discounts now. Otherwise - yes, go somewhere else. Busy season is over and it shouldn't be difficult to find another preparer/EA/CPA to do the work for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac1b913c39ab30f29679bf9167b2f2b5",
"text": "Hope you figure it out. There wouldn't be a different RFR / discount rate because you're assuming a return on parked cash - that's what it's for. Since both situations would theoretically happen simultaneously you use the same rate unless you would do something different with cash in each instance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6cdc4bc1296bfa5ec4aed75305e96a2",
"text": "It looks like what you're calling a name change was registered as a merger that resulted in an exchange of stock. If that's the case, then what you've been told is correct. You've got one long-term sale and one short-term sale. Based a quick read of the Form 8937 that was filed, it looks like there were multiple entities involved in this event, more than one of which existed prior to it. https://www.mylan.com/-/media/mylancom/files/form%208937%20for%20mylan%20n%20v.pdf",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cdd115b6e66c8f2ffeb9c3635616c57f
|
Why can I refinance my recent car loan at a lower rate than I had received originally?
|
[
{
"docid": "55ccccc9e0e5a443f22f15b201426040",
"text": "\"The simple answer might just be that the increased credit score you mentioned was enough to suddenly make you eligible for this lenders better rate, so maybe that's why you weren't able to get that low a rate before. Another option I can think of is that this particular bank offers these loans as a \"\"teaser rate\"\" to hopefully get more of your business later on. It's not exactly a loss leader I would think, given the non-existing deposit rates they're probably still able to make money on the spread but they might be able to undercut other banks enough to get their hooks into you. Figuratively speaking, of course. Of course in order to evaluate if it's worth switching to this deal, you'll also have to look at prepayment penalties and fees on your current loan. These extra costs might be enough to make the switch uneconomic.\"",
"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": "c616c83c92d8a682a7fd0f2424c8ecb8",
"text": "If you are a subprime borrower, that may not be an unreasonable rate given the risk they are accepting. In any case, it's what you agreed to. As others have said, you could/should have shopped elsewhere for the loan. In fact, you can still shop elsewhere for a loan to refinance that vehicle and thus lower the rate, unless the existing loan has equally obnoxious rules about that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da9bc8b786e7314a869004e0ffd56ad0",
"text": "\"So there are a few angles to this. The previous answers are correct in saying that cash is different than financing and, therefore, the dealer can rescind the offer. As for financing, the bank or finance company can give the dealership a \"\"kickback\"\" or charge a \"\"fee\"\" based on the customer's credit score. So everyone saying that the dealers want you to finance....well yes, so long as you have good credit. The dealership will make the most money off of someone with good credit. The bank charges a fee to the dealership for the loan to a customer with bad credit. Use that tactic with good credit...no problem. Use that tactic with bad credit.....problem.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27467d97abb9b009915037eef77ffc99",
"text": "Umm actually asking to be refinanced at a lower rate *IS* asking them to forgive/give up part of the mortgage. Peoples greed in getting themselves into upside down mortgages are why we have problems, not the banks not helping them out enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f595b1e50b0683b20aa07a69001c969c",
"text": "\"One way to think of the typical fixed rate mortgage, is that you can calculate the balance at the end of the month. Add a month's interest (rate times balance, then divide by 12) then subtract your payment. The principal is now a bit less, and there's a snowball effect that continues to drop the principal more each month. Even though some might object to my use of the word \"\"compounding,\"\" a prepayment has that effect. e.g. you have a 5% mortgage, and pay $100 extra principal. If you did nothing else, 5% compounded over 28 years is about 4X. So, if you did this early on, it would reduce the last payment by about $400. Obviously, there are calculators and spreadsheets that can give the exact numbers. I don't know the rules for car loans, but one would actually expect them to work similarly, and no, you are not crazy to expect that. Just the opposite.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f9f5b030ba22a07c5635bb76abf7cda",
"text": "The dealership is getting a kickback for having you use a particular bank to finance through. The bank assumes you will take the full term of the loan to pay back, and will hopefully be a repeat customer. This tactic isn't new, and although it maybe doesn't make sense to you, the consumer, in the long run it benefits the bank and the dealership. (They wouldn't do it otherwise. These guys have a lot of smart people running #s for them). Be sure to read the specifics of the loan contract. There may be a penalty for paying it off early. Most customers won't be able to pay that much in cash, so the bank makes a deal with the dealership to send clients their way. They will lose money on a small percentage of clients, but make more off of the rest of the clients. If there's no penalty for paying it off early, you may just want to take the financing offer and pay it off ASAP. If you truly can only finance $2500 for 6 mos, and get the full discount, then that might work as well. The bank had to set a minimum for the dealership in order to qualify as a loan that earns the discount. Sounds like that's it. Bonus Info: Here's a screenshot of Kelley Blue Book for that car. Car dealers get me riled up, always have, always will, so I like doing this kind of research for people to make sure they get the right price. Fair price range is $27,578 - $28,551. First time car buyers are a dealers dream come true. Don't let them beat you down! And here's more specific data about the Florida area relating to recent purchases:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78c7b2bf71f314407d951a11d5e096fb",
"text": "\"It's possible the $16,000 was for more than the car. Perhaps extras were added on at purchase time; or perhaps they were folded into the retail price of the car. Here's an example. 2014: I'm ready to buy. My 3-year-old trade-in originally cost $15,000, and I financed it for 6 years and still owe $6500. It has lots of miles and excess wear, so fair blue-book is $4500. I'm \"\"upside down\"\" by $2000, meaning I'd have to pay $2000 cash just to walk away from the car. I'll never have that, because I'm not a saver. So how can we get you in a new car today? Dealer says \"\"If you pay the full $15,000 retail price plus $1000 of worthless dealer add-ons like wax undercoat (instead of the common discounted $14,000 price), I'll eat your $2000 loss on the trade.\"\" All gets folded into my new car financing. It's magic! (actually it's called rollover.) 2017: I'm getting itchy to trade up, and doggone it, I'm upside down on this car. Why does this keep happening to me? In this case, it's rollover and other add-ons, combined with too-long car loans (6 year), combined with excessive mileage and wear on the vehicle.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6258521702a300eae833d6642dd22f9b",
"text": "I suggest you to apply for a car loan in other banks like DCU or wells fargo, you might get the loan with not the best rate, but after a year you can refinance your loan with a better rate in a different bank since you are going to have a better credit as long as you make your payments in time. I bought a Jetta 2014 last year, my loan is from Wells Fargo. Like you, my credit was low before the loan because I didn't have too much credit history. They gave me the loan with a 8.9% of interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05f65e79d17fa5283838c5212626126e",
"text": "so this is a loan for a house? a loan on a house? a new mortgage? you shouldn't just get a loan for the hell of it any time. interests rates are low because the yields on US treasuries have been pushed closer to zero, and thats pretty much that. the risk is on the bank that approves the loan, and not you. (your ability to repay should be truthful, but your payments are smaller because the interest is so low)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25e6d4e27407fb2a0e74fb8633fc6e3b",
"text": "Why would you trade a lower interest rate over a higher one? I wouldn't use the mortgage to pay off the car. Also, you should have loan/lease payoff on your auto insurance, which if the car is totaled means your loan would be paid by insurance. I don't think you'd be able to take advantage of that if your car payments become one with the mortgage. Finally not all mortgage interest may be deductible. Also, I can't think of any way you'd be able to use the car loan to pay off the mortgage. You wouldn't be able to borrow more than the car is worth, and for a new car it loses quite a bit of value immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d7a9f474c7febfeb6d52e5333e4c82e",
"text": "The car company loans you money at 1 or 2% because it is part of the incentive to get you to buy the car. Car company transactions are complex involving the manufacturer, the dealership, and the financing part of the car company. Not to mention Rebates, the used car transaction, and the leasing department. If they don't offer you a loan then the profit from that part of transaction is lost to an outside company. The better loan rates from the manufacturer are only with shorter term loans and without the rebate. That is why some suggest that you get the rebate, and then go to a credit union for the loan for lowest overall cost and greatest flexibility. The advertised rates are also only for the customers with great credit scores and the room in their clash flow to pay off the loan in a year or two. If you don't fit in that category, the rates will be higher.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3d8fefc639c7cb5e3c2ba260f5dd1fd",
"text": "\"I'm going to ignore your numbers to avoid spending the time to understand them. I'm just going to go over the basic moving parts of trading an upside down car against another financed car because I think you're conflating price and value. I'm also going to ignore taxes, and fees, and depreciation. The car has an acquisition cost (price) then it has a value. You pay the price to obtain this thing, then in the future it is worth what someone else will pay you. When you finance a car you agree to your $10,000 price, then you call up Mr. Bank and agree to pay 10% per year for 5 years on that $10,000. Mr. Banker wires over $10,000 and you drive home in your car. Say in a year you want a different car. This new car has a price of $20,000, and wouldn't you know it they'll even buy your current car from you. They'll give you $7,000 to trade in your current car. Your current car has a value of $7,000. You've made 12 payments of $188.71. Of those payments about $460 was interest, you now owe about $8,195 to Mr. Banker. The new dealership needs to send payment to Mr. Banker to get the title for your current car. They'll send the $7,000 they agreed to pay for your car. Then they'll loan you the additional $1,195 ($8,195 owed on the car minus $7,000 trade in value). Your loan on the new car will be for $21,195, $20,000 for the new car and $1,195 for the amount you still owed on the old car after the dealership paid you $7,000 for your old car. It doesn't matter what your down-payment was on the old car, it doesn't matter what your payment was before, it doesn't matter what you bought your old car for. All that matters is how much you owe on it today and how much the buyer (the dealership) is willing to pay you for it. How much of this is \"\"loss\"\" is an extremely vague number to derive primarily because your utility of the car has a value. But it could be argued that the $1,195 added on to your new car loan to pay for the old car is lost.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fb7c86c1640590eceb4aff8ad47c4e1",
"text": "So, in general, pay to the higher interest rate. Some contrived reasons you would want to pay your auto loan more could be:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e136cafcae837d65d87c1e9fd27b5988",
"text": "You can negotiate a no penalty for early payment loan with dealerships sometimes. Dealerships will often give you a better price on the car when you finance through them vs paying cash, so you negotiate in a 48 month finance, after you've settled on the price THEN you negotiate the no penalty for early payment point. They'll be less likely to try to raise the price after you've already come to an agreement. My dad has SAID he does this when buying cars, but that could just be hearsay and bravado. Has said he will negotiate on the basis of a long term lease, nail down a price then throw that clause in, then pay the car off in the first payment. Disclaimer: it's...um not a great way to do business though if you plan to purchase a new car every 2-3 years from the same dealer. Do it once and you'll have a note in their CRM not to either a) offer price reductions for financing or b) offer no penalty early payment financing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13f8f990eb2701f4c3ca892e40f200d7",
"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 not keep up with normal depreciation, thus trapping the buyer in an upside down loan for the entire term.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
28ba8df186644cc412229bd236e2e6a0
|
What percent of your portfolio should be in a money market account?
|
[
{
"docid": "36e643c89da53b0e2d4622950dd89045",
"text": "I would disagree with your analysis. To me there are two purposes for a money market (MM): Your emergency fund should be from 3 to 6 months of expenses. Think of it of an insurance policy against Murphy. You may want to have some money designated for big expenses, or even sinking funds. For example, I keep some money in a MM for a car as both the wife, daughter, and I driver older vehicles. I may need to replace them. If you were planning on making a larger purchase car, house, boat, engagement ring I would put the money in a MM fund so you are not subject to the whims of the market. After that you are free to invest all your money. Its likely that you should have some money outside of tax advantaged funds so if you want to start a business you will not have to do high cost withdrawals.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f3e87d9a566a713b82cacb81f7052be9",
"text": "You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)",
"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": "747be3bebcd79dbf81948b93a3a6ae4b",
"text": "\"One possibility you may consider is to keep all of your funds in the stocks and shares ISA while investing that proportion you wish to keep in cash into a tradeable \"\"Money Market\"\" ETF. A Money Market ETF will give you rates comparable to interest rates on cash and at the same time it will give you \"\"instant access\"\" subject to normal 3 day settlement of equities. This is not exactly a perfect solution. Most Money Market ETFs will pay monthly dividends, so depending on your timing, you may have to give up some interest. In the worst case, if you were to sell the day before going ex-dividend, then you would be giving up a months interest. In the best case, if you were to sell on the day of going ex-dividend, you would be giving up no interest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aedf2391fb10d1b8a89979464f555c0b",
"text": "\"Easiest thing ever. In fact, 99% of people are loosing money. If you perform worse then 10% annually in cash (average over 5-10 years), then you better never even think about trading/investing. Most people are sitting at 0%..-5% annually. They win some, loose some, and are being outrun by inflation and commissions. In fact, fall of market is not a big deal, stock indexes are often jump back in a few months. If you rebalance properly, it is mitigated. Your much bigger enemy is inflation. If you think inflation is small, look at gold price over past 20 years. Some people, Winners at first, grow to +10%, get too relaxed and start to grow already lost position. That one loose trade eats 10% of their portfolio. Only there that people realize they should cut it off, when they already lost their profits. And they start again with +0%. This is hard thing to accept, but most of people are not made for that type of business. Even worse, they think \"\"if I had bigger budget, I would perform better\"\", which is kind of self-lie.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ef29e3275771997bad0a65648a4bf4e",
"text": "At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90cf653a01b6f9a034dc013a6e16605f",
"text": "\"value slip below vs \"\"equal a bank savings account’s safety\"\" There is no conflict. The first author states that money market funds may lose value, precisely due to duration risk. The second author states that money market funds is as safe as a bank account. Safety (in the sense of a bond/loan/credit) mostly about default risk. For example, people can say that \"\"a 30-year U.S. Treasury Bond is safe\"\" because the United States \"\"cannot default\"\" (as said in the Constitution/Amendments) and the S&P/Moody's credit rating is the top/special. Safety is about whether it can default, ex. experience a -100% return. Safety does not directly imply Riskiness. In the example of T-Bond, it is ultra safe, but it is also ultra risky. The volatility of 30-year T-Bond could be higher than S&P 500. Back to Money Market Funds. A Money Market Fund could hold deposits with a dozen of banks, or hold short term investment grade debt. Those instruments are safe as in there is minimal risk of default. But they do carry duration risk, because the average duration of the instrument the fund holds is not 0. A money market fund must maintain a weighted average maturity (WAM) of 60 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements. If you have $10,000,000, a Money Market Fund is definitely safer than a savings account. 1 Savings Account at one institution with amount exceeding CDIC/FDIC terms is less safe than a Money Market Fund (which holds instruments issued by 20 different Banks). Duration Risk Your Savings account doesn't lose money as a result of interest rate change because the rate is set by the bank daily and accumulated daily (though paid monthly). The pricing of short term bond is based on market expectation of the interest rates in the future. The most likely cause of Money Market Funds losing money is unexpected change in expectation of future interest rates. The drawdown (max loss) is usually limited in terms of percentage and time through examining historical returns. The rule of thumb is that if your hold a fund for 6 months, and that fund has a weighted average time to maturity of 6 months, you might lose money during the 6 months, but you are unlikely to lose money at the end of 6 months. This is not a definitive fact. Using GSY, MINT, and SHV as an example or short duration funds, the maximum loss in the past 3 years is 0.4%, and they always recover to the previous peak within 3 months. GSY had 1.3% per year return, somewhat similar to Savings accounts in the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd5ff70947319aa159d422cbc5ac42db",
"text": "Unless you are getting better than a 2.95% return on that money market account. Pay cash. That's the purely logical way to make the decision. However if it were me I'd pay cash anyway just because I like the idea of not owing money and having the hassle of dealing with a payment every month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82ba0f452d4b3e445bc43c048af5ffee",
"text": "\"Considering that I can't find anything on Chase's web site referencing a \"\"Money Market IRA\"\" I suspect that this is a type of account that they aren't actively supporting anymore, but aren't forcing you to cash it in. I would call Chase to find out for sure, however. That said, a money market is not a good investment if you are looking for any kind of growth. They are basically a savings account that pay (currently) a small amount of interest. You can get much better return from other low-risk investments. You can rebalance periodically if you want to keep a certain amount of \"\"cash\"\" available.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "191824de5be033fb66c499b8b3423653",
"text": "\"Wikipedia has a solid article on Money Market Funds which includes a section on \"\"Breaking the Buck\"\" when the money market fund fails to return its full dollar. Money market funds smoothing out the daily (generally small) fluctuations of investing in short-term treasuries directly but have similar risk over longer periods. Some funds can and have lost money in market crashes, though even the worst performers still returned 95+ cents on the dollar. While few investments are guaranteed and likely none in your retirement account, money-market funds are likely the choice you have with the least fluctuation and similar minimal risk to short term treasuries. However, a second important risk to consider is inflation. Money market funds generally have returns similar or less than the inflation rate. While money markets funds help you avoid the fluctuations of the stock market the value of your retirement account falls behind the cost of goods over time. Unless the investor is fairly old most financial professionals would recommend only a small portion of a retirement account be in money market instruments. Vanguard also has a set of target retirement investment funds that are close to what many professionals would recommend. Consulting a financial professional to discuss your particular needs is a good option as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "76b00f77433b0df7da99300876af2472",
"text": "Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4e31795af415c177c865881565520b2",
"text": "(After seeing your most recent comment on the original question, it looks like others have answered the question you intended, and described the extreme difficulty of getting the timing right the way you're trying to. Since I've already typed it up, what follows answers what I originally thought your question was, which was asking if there were drawbacks to investing entirely in money market funds to avoid stock volatility altogether.) Money market funds have the significant drawback that they offer low returns. One of the fundamental principles in finance is that there is a trade-off between low risk and high returns. While money market funds are extremely stable, their returns are paltry; under current market conditions, you can consider them roughly equivalent to cash. On the other hand, though investing in stocks puts your money on a roller coaster, returns will be, on average, substantially higher. Since people often invest in order to achieve personal financial stability, many feel naturally attracted to very stable investments like money market funds. However, this tendency can be a big mistake. The higher returns of the stock market don't merely serve to stoke an investor's greed, they are necessary for achieving most people's financial goals. For example, consider two hypothetical investors, saving for retirement over the course of a 40-year career. The first investor, apprehensive Adam, invests $10k per year in a money market fund. The second investor, brave Barbara, invests $10k per year in an S&P 500 index fund (reinvesting dividends). Let's be generous and say that Adam's money market fund keeps pace with inflation (in reality, they typically don't even do that). At the end of 40 years, in today's money, Adam will have $10,000*40 = $400,000, not nearly enough to retire comfortably on. On the other hand, let's assume that Barbara gets returns of 7% per year after inflation, which is typical (though not guaranteed). Barbara will then have, using the formula for the future value of an annuity, $10,000 * [(1.07)^40 - 1] / 0.07, or about $2,000,000, which is much more comfortable. While Adam's strategy produces nearly guaranteed results, those results are actually guaranteed failure. Barbara's strategy is not a guarantee, but it has a good chance of producing a comfortable retirement. Even if her timing isn't great, over these time scales, the chances that she will have more money than Adam in the end are very high. (I won't produce a technical analysis of this claim, as it's a bit complicated. Do more research if you're interested.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "340ac483e5d9cf583bfacf6ff5df17ad",
"text": "Everyone would like a savings/checking account that has the same liquidity as others but pays multiple times as much, but such a thing would break the laws of finance. The thing keeping savings and checking accounts cheap isn't particularly the FDIC insurance but the high liquidity and near certainty that you will not lose money. In all of finance you are compensated for the risk (and perhaps illiquidity) you bear. If you insist on a risk-free and highly liquid investment, you will get the risk-free and highly liquid rate, which is currently around 1%. Doesn't matter what type of investment it is (savings, money market, treasuries, etc.). Money market funds, in particular, were designed to be a replacement for savings accounts. They have decent liquidity and almost no risk (and no FDIC insurance). But they earn about what good savings accounts do, because that's what risk-free investments earn. If you wish to earn more you must decide what you will give up: Decide on one (or both) of those to sacrifice and you will find yourself with options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "663e63cd3eeb3bc4767f5bf67af15d76",
"text": "If you're relatively certain that you're going to meet the requirements, it sounds like a good move for you. The #1 priority with emergency funds should be easy access to the money when you need it. Before the current economic situation, money market funds were great for this since they preserved the value of the dollars you put in. Now the rates on money market accounts are barely better than the 0.2% you're currently getting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fce119d437797fae452a931d307b949c",
"text": "10% is way high unless you really dedicate time to managing your investments. Commodities should be a part of the speculative/aggressive portion of your portfolio, and you should be prepared to lose most or all of that portion of your portfolio. Metals aren't unique enough to justify a specific allocation -- they tend to perform well in a bad economic climate, and should be evaluated periodically. The fallacy in the arguments of gold/silver advocates is that metals have some sort of intrinsic value that protects you. I'm 32, and remember when silver was $3/oz, so I don't know how valid that assertion is. (Also recall the 25% price drop when the CBOE changed silver's margin requirements.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5bdb48c2679a5d845e53c4394beac3a7
|
Does a failed chargeback affect my credit score?
|
[
{
"docid": "c8be4f69d437e28f0d7e164653cab264",
"text": "If this chargeback failed then would it negatively affect my credit score? A credit score is a measure of how dependable of a borrower you are. Requesting a refund for not receiving goods not delivered as promised, whether it is successful or it fails, should not impact your credit score since it has no implications on the likelihood that you will pay back debts. The last time I used that gym was the 13th January 2017, and I rejoined on the 20th December, so I have used it for less than a month. Therefore I do not think I should have to pay for two months Keep in mind that you purchased a membership to the gym. Whether or not you actually use the gym you are liable to pay for every month that you retain the membership. Although it probably won't hurt to try to get a refund for the period where you didn't take advantage of your gym membership, you weren't actually charged for a service that you never received (like in the last case where they charged you after you cancelled your membership).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d3a8e900cecf7ac3996efc9e605a862",
"text": "\"I think your confusion comes from the negative impact when a creditor writes off your bad credit and ceases attempting to collect it. \"\"Chargebacks\"\" as you call them are an attempt to undo fraudulent charges on your card, whether from stolen credit card info or from a merchant who is using shady business practices. For what it's worth, if you joined on December 20, January 20 seems like a reasonable date for the next billing cycle, with the December 31 date reflecting the fact that their system couldn't automatically bill you the day you joined. I also think it's reasonable for you to ask them to refund the bill for the second month if you do not plan to use their gym further. So the dispute seems like a reasonable one on both sides. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ade3fe075a328cb9ac02c1c950bfead",
"text": "Credit scores in the U.S. are entirely based on information contained in your credit report. The details of your credit card transactions, such as where your individual purchases are from, the amount of individual purchases, refunds, chargebacks (successful or failed), etc. do not appear on your credit report. Therefore, they can have no impact on your credit score. According to creditsavvy.com.au, credit scores in Australia are based on similar information: the information in your credit history, credit profile, and credit applications. I don't see anything that would suggest that the details of your transactions would affect your credit score.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e0f298e784249ed9b824b177253cf6ca",
"text": "After doing some investigating, my employers contract with the credit card company has a clause that basically specifies that despite my name being on the credit card, and bills being sent to me, all liability is on the company. Additionally, the employer reserves the right to garnish wages in the event of a balance on the card. So it looks like it won't affect my credit score. I appreciate all of the advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e073c71ae7a33cf89cf9a3a58ca8da94",
"text": "This is more of a legal question than a monetary one. You can try to negotiate with the debt owner as Pete B. suggests. Alternatively, you can ignore them and see what happens. They might sue you for the 400 plus costs, or maybe not. That is a pretty small amount for a lawyer to show up in a court of law. If you go to court, you can win by testifying that you returned the box and the charge is invalid. If you testify in court that you did not return the box, then you will lose. Sometimes a debt collector will just file a credit complaint against you and you would have to go to court to get that complaint removed from your record with the credit agency. The loan owner has no idea whether you returned the box at all. All they have is a debt security which simply says who owes the money and how much it is. In a court room they have zero evidence against you (unless you said something to them and they wrote it down or recorded it).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccc5d2a7688d21b0059a0f0a604dc7b1",
"text": "So My question is. Is my credit score going to be hit? Yes it will affect your credit. Not as much as missing payments on the debt, which remains even if the credit line is closed, and not as much as missing payments on other bills... If so what can I do about it? Not very much. Nothing worth the time it would take. Like you mentioned, reopening the account or opening another would likely require a credit check and the inquiry will add another negative factor. In this situation, consider the impact on your credit as fact and the best way to correct it is to move forward and pay all your bills on time. This is the number one key to improving credit score. So, right now, the key task is finding a new job. This will enable you to make all payments on time. If you pay on time and do not overspend, your credit score will be fine. Can I contact the creditors to appeal the decision and get them to not affect my score at the very least? I know they won't restore the account without another credit check). Is there anything that can be done directly with the credit score companies? Depending on how they characterize the closing of the account, it may be mostly a neutral event that has a negative impact than a negative event. By negative events, I'm referring to bankruptcy, charge offs, and collections. So the best way to recover is to keep credit utilization below 30% and pay all your bills and debt payments on time. (You seem to be asking how to replace this line of credit to help you through your unemployment.) As for the missing credit line and your current finances, you have to find a way forward. Opening new credit account while you're not employed is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. You might find yourself in a situation where you need to take whatever part time gig you can find in order to make ends meet until your job search is complete. Grocery store, fast food, wait staff, delivery driver, etc. And once you get past this period of unemployment, you'll need to catch up on all bills, then you'll want to build your emergency fund. You don't mention one, but eating, paying rent/mortgage, keeping current on bills, and paying debt payments are the reasons behind the emergency fund, and the reason you need it in a liquid account. Source: I'm a veteran of decades of bad choices when it comes to money, of being unemployed for periods of time, of overusing credit cards, and generally being irresponsible with my income and savings. I've done all those things and am now paying the price. In order to rebuild my credit, and provide for my retirement, I'm having to work very hard to save. My focus being financial health, not credit score, I've brought my bottom line from approximately 25k in the red up to about 5k in the red. The first step was getting my payments under control. I have also been watching my credit score. Two years of on time mortgage payments, gradual growth of score. Paid off student loans, uptick in score. Opened new credit card with 0% intro rate to consolidate a couple of store line of credit accounts. Transferred those balances. Big uptick. Next month when utilization on that card hits 90%, downtick that took back a year's worth of gains. However, financially, I'm not losing 50-100 a month to interest. TLDR; At certain times, you have to ignore the credit score and focus on the important things. This is one of those times for you. Find a job. Get back on your feet. Then look into living debt free, or working to achieve financial independence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f780ede624cc558237341e4335e2dd31",
"text": "The answer to your question is no. Your credit rating is the way creditors let each other know whether you are in a good position and have a strong tendency to repay your debts, not whether you are an easy target for making money on interest and penalties associated with failing to repay debts in full. The fact that you make your payments on time will definitely not lower your credit rating. While the banks are not making as much money on you as they would if you carried a balance, they are also not spending a lot of money on you, nor losing a lot of money on people like you failing to repay debts. The transactions charged to the retailers cover the costs of operating your card and then a little bit. That is enough to make you worth keeping as a customer. They are happy with your arrangement. The formula for credit rating computation is proprietary, but we know what the factors are overall. Making payments on time consistently is a positive, not a negative factor. However, they do look at the number of cards and overall mix of cards and other types of debt. For example, if you have a very large amount of credit capacity in your cards and no mortgage, that could possibly be a negative. If you have opened some of those accounts recently, it could be a negative. If you have a larger number credit cards than they think is good, that could be a negative. There are other things as well that could be bringing your score down. Probably worth it to take a look. If you want to get an idea of what factors are adding positively and negatively to your credit score, I'd encourage you to visit CreditKarma.com, Quizzle.com, or another source intended to help you understand and improve your credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "004045a3f04f04b4337bbbe4ccc90771",
"text": "Check out /r/personalfinance for more detailed advice. Not sure your question. Yes, cancelling it will cause it to disappear from your credit report. Apply for your own card right now (a free rewards one ideally) if your credit it good enough and you have a job. Never pay interest and keep that card and your credit will naturally head to 720+ with no negative marks over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faf24c20508fc14ee7b7220428afd0ce",
"text": "It costs money to pull credit information, and there's a record of who requested the info. And hard pulls are only a temporary, short-term ding on your score. Basically, if someone wants to make trouble, there are better ways to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18b7559a6edda684caf66c1f0c3a4e40",
"text": "\"Your bank will undoubtedly charge you a fee for the \"\"chargeback\"\" and so while you will get your money back faster, you will likely end up with less than you would if you were not so impatient and just waited a few days for the refund to show up. I suppose it depends on whether you consider this a downside or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a8b5d1cc34bebe4d47588994d14e37b",
"text": "Payment history is probably the most significant contributor to your credit score. Having a solid history of making, at least the minimum, payments on time will have a positive impact on your credit score. Whether or not this specific transaction means anything to that equation is up for debate. If you have no credit lines now and 0% for 18 months on a computer makes sense to you, then yes, making this purchase this way and paying on time will have a positive impact on your credit score. Paying interest doesn't help your credit score. Repay this computer before the 18 month period ends, then be sure to pay your balance in full every month thereafter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "487342b59ecd1739ead28cebd4f8eefb",
"text": "Credit scores are designed to reflect your ability to make payments on time. As long as you're not closing your old credit card account, you will only see a minimal impact on your score. See estimated credit score breakdowns below:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bf8916a07958f21f05d6bdb91a0000f",
"text": "\"First, a note of my personal experience: up until a year ago, my credit lines were composed exclusively of credit cards with perfect payment histories, and my credit score is fine. If you mean that credit cards have no impact on a person's credit score until they miss a payment, that is certainly not correct. FICO's website identifies \"\"payment history\"\" as 35% of your FICO score: The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you’ve paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. ... Credit payment history on many types of accounts Account types considered for payment history include: ... Details on late or missed payments (\"\"delinquencies\"\") and public record and collection items FICO® Scores consider: How many accounts show no late payment A good track record on most of your credit accounts will increase your FICO® Scores. Clearly, from the last item alone, we see that credit lines (a category which includes credit cards) with no late payments is a factor in computing your FICO score, and certainly other credit bureaus behave similarly. Possibly the banker was trying to explain some other point, like \"\"If you're careful not to spend more on your card than you have in the bank, you can functionally treat your credit card as a debit line,\"\" but did so in a confusing way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52b93ea21402f1d2f3d73a6d680c120c",
"text": "I have already talked to them over the phone and they insist they haven't charged me yet, and I will not be charged. When I informed them I had in fact been charged they agreed it would be reversed. So I have tried to resolve the issue and I don't have any confidence they will reverse the charge as it has not been done yet. They are difficult to communicate which makes the whole process more difficult. Your best next step is to call the credit card company and share this story. I believe the likely result is that the credit card company will initiate a charge back. My question is, is this a valid reason to file a chargeback on my credit card? Yes. If you attempted to work it out with the vendor and it is not working out, this is an appropriate time to initiate a charge back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001467b6ee0f5efdbd4ee55a495d55c5",
"text": "Consider that however high your credit score gets, there is a 'worst piece of it'. The automated software will always report your 'weakest' two points, even if they are already at the top 0.0001% of everyone; that's just how it is coded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a0c857f666db616db5e97f746fa4ffd",
"text": "This will have no effect on your credit score. Even though your credit card account number is changing, it is still the same account, so your history of payments and age of accounts will remain unchanged.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9be848b4054ffe1f5af563fcd6422f6",
"text": "\"First of all, whatever you do, DON'T PAY! Credit reporting agencies operate on aged records, and paying it now will most certainly not improve your score. For example, let's say that you had an unpaid debt that was reported as a \"\"charge-off\"\" to the credit bureaus. After, say, six months, the negative effect on your score is reduced. It is reduced even further after a year or two, and after two years, the negative effect on your score is negligible. Now, say you were to pay the debt after the two years. This would \"\"refresh\"\" the record, and show as a \"\"paid charge-off\"\". Sure, now it shows as paid, but it also shows the date of the record as being today, which increases the effect on your credit drastically. In other words, you would have just shot yourself in the foot, big-time. As others have noted, the best option is to dispute the item. If, for some reason, it isn't removed, you are allowed to submit an annotation to the item, explaining your side of the story. Anyone pulling your credit record would see this note, which can help you in some instances. In any case, these scam artists don't deserve your money. Finally, you should check who is the local ombusdman, and report this agent to them. She could lose her license for such a practice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7158c719aa4183cc9db62532ce39fdb5",
"text": "It is not delayed and if it didn't show yet - will not show on that agency's credit report. However, you may find it on another agency's report. There are three major agencies, and creditors don't always check all of them (each inquiry costs them money).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b4edf4f1ef798ebd525a68201cb1b358
|
Should I file a change of address with the IRS?
|
[
{
"docid": "6a52d1b7bf78322f735fdfe93ad1477d",
"text": "The most important thing to do when moving is to change your address with the post office. This will forward most mail for a year, and even automatically send change of address notices to many businesses that send mail to you. If you do this, and the IRS needs to send you something over the next year, you'll get it. The IRS does have a procedure for changing your address, and you would want to do this if you are expecting something from the IRS and are unable to do a change of address with the post office for some reason. But if you do forward your mail and you aren't expecting a refund check, I don't think it is necessary. The IRS will get your new address when you file your return next year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eccc86c65137baf66ef701e51c2ed47f",
"text": "You put your Michigan address. The incorporation address is of no concern for the IRS, they couldn't care less where you're incorporated - it has no effect on your tax liability. The address is used when audited, and the IRS expects you to give the address where the records are (i.e.: where the business, aka you, is physically located).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9574f0e2fb0fbf836e189b29db9332cd",
"text": "\"If the IRS changes your return in any way (including math errors) - they send a letter explaining the change and the reasons for it. You should read that letter, it will answer your question (Usually its a CP12 notice). If you didn't receive it - you can call them and ask to resend it (they're unlikely to answer over the phone, but you can try asking). I'm confused by your using the word \"\"estimate\"\". Your tax return is not supposed to be estimate, it supposed to be precise. Why are you considering your tax return \"\"estimate\"\"? If your filed tax return shows refund of $X and you received $X+$180 - then as I said, a letter of explanation from the IRS is due. If you don't know what the refund amount on your return is and you're trying to \"\"estimate\"\" it now - you better get a copy of that return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9dca32b8177f2bddd8208506c0d1b84",
"text": "You proceed with a proper legal advice. You should not ignore IRS letters. You should have taken your chances in trying to reach a compromise with them, but that ship has likely sailed already. You might want to consider bankruptcy. Ask your parents for a couple of hundreds of dollars to pay for a legal consultation with a lawyer and a CPA and proceed from there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97336ce35e043e2b0283be57f1a75128",
"text": "In how much trouble can I get exactly if the IRS finds out? I understand that there's a 6 year statute of limitations on criminal charges and no limitation at all on fraud. Is this considered fraud? I'm assuming not. There's no statute of limitations for fraud (which is a criminal charge). The statute of limitations is for failure to report income which is not fraud. In your case, since you willingly decided to not report it knowingly that you should, it can most definitely account for fraud, so I wouldn't count on statute of limitations in this case. I should amend my taxes for those years That would be the easiest way to go. would the IRS go all the way and file criminal charges considering the amount of money I owe They have the legal right to, and if you do get caught - likely they will. Easy money for them, since you obviously have income and can pay all the fines and penalties. Practically speaking, what's the worst case scenario? Theoretically - can be jail as well. Being charged in a criminal court, even if the eventual punishment is just a penalty, is a punishment of its own. You'll have troubles finding jobs, passing security checks, getting loans approved, etc. For $3200, when you're in 25% bracket as an individual for years, I'd say not worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1513d548321287b8b1ab7d6ac433981",
"text": "\"Buried on the IRS web site is the \"\"Fillable Forms Error Search Tool\"\". Rather than including an explanation of errors in the rejection email itself, you're expected to copy and paste the error email into this form, which gives more details about what's wrong. (Don't blame me; I didn't design it.) If I copy your error message in, here's the response I get: There is an error with the “primary taxpayer’s Date of Birth” in Step 2 Section 4. The date of birth that was entered does not match IRS records. Make sure you enter the correct birth date, in the correct format, in the correct space. Scroll down, and enter the current date (“Today’s date”). Today’s date is the day you intend to e-file the return again. Also, if you are making an electronic payment you must re-date that section. E-File your return. You say that you've already checked your birthday, so I don't know as this is particularly helpful. If you're confident that it's correct and in the right place, I think your next step needs to be contacting the IRS directly. They have a link at the bottom of the error lookup response on how to contact them specifically about their solution not working, or you could try contacting your local IRS office or giving them a call.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9760eb01c9865d9e976ff2bb5d0ca757",
"text": "I'm not an attorney, nor am I a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you talk to these two types of professionals. From my limited knowledge, without proper documentation/organization, I can't see how the IRS/State will not consider this as a rent payment. The mortgage responsibility is of the person signing the mortgage contract, and you're under no obligation to pay that person anything. Had you not lived at the property, you might argue that it was a gift (although I'm not sure if it would stand), but since you do live in the property - it is quite obviously a rent payment. Putting your name on the deed may mitigate this slightly but I'm not sure how much - since you're still not obligated to pay the mortgage. However this is probably moot since it is unlikely for a bank to give a mortgage on a property to person A when it is also owned by a person B, without that person B being side to the mortgage contract.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a11834365a486a06411dce06c9b09bb",
"text": "\"The wire is probably the quick way to go. There may be a lower cost method through an international bank like Citi or HSBC. If you are a US resident or have a \"\"substantial presence\"\" in the United States, the IRS may be interested in the origins of your money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7e3d7a58663bf7892905e74ddb6346a",
"text": "\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5585aaa5c498c78f143339441300c8fa",
"text": "Why not just leave it as is and register as foreign entity in New Mexico? You won't avoid the gross receipts tax, but other than that - everything stays as is. Unless Illinois has some taxes that you would otherwise not pay - just leave it there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02c78bcfa77c8f9dce19cef17e2a50db",
"text": "It will not affect your tax bracket so long as he files his taxes. It will not affect your credit negatively so long as the joint account takes out no debts. If it does take out debts, then someone would need to pay them to avoid negative credit. Ideally debts should take signatures from both of you (ask the bank). The IRS will not automatically assume that the only reason that two people might have a joint account is illegal activities. If he withdraws money from the account in such a way to cause an overdraft, you might be responsible for it. However, it sounds like he isn't supposed to be withdrawing money from that account. So that's a potential problem but not a guaranteed problem. Make sure that you have the power to close the account without him (so if you break up later, you can take your name off unilaterally). Realize that you might have to pay a little to close the account if he overdraws it. If possible, have the bank refuse overdrafts. Consider a savings account rather than a checking account. The rules may better fit what you want to do. In particular, if you are limited to transfers, that's safer than checks. Schedule a time to talk to someone at the bank about the account. Ask them to leave plenty of time because you have questions. Explain what you want and let them tell you how to structure the account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79702816dfe3554f3eae54d04ca87ae3",
"text": "I suggest you talk to a New York-licensed tax adviser (EA or NY-licensed CPA). New York is very aggressive when it comes to residency determination, and given your facts and circumstances you may end up being considered NY resident despite relocating to Florida. If you maintain a studio in NY, I'd say 99% chance is that you remain NY resident for the whole year (but verify with a professional).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "614098cccc7c2833b8fc3c2452d2e12c",
"text": "\"Ditto @GradeEhBacon, but let me add a couple of comments: But more relevantly: GradeEhBacon mentioned transaction costs. Yes. Many tax shelters require setting up accounts, doing paperwork, etc. Often you have to get a lawyer or accountant to do this right. If the tax shelter could save you $1 million a year in taxes, it makes sense to pay a lawyer $10,000 to set it up right. If it could save you $100 a year in taxes, paying $10,000 to set it up would be foolish. In some cases the tax savings would be so small that it wouldn't be worth the investment of spending $20 on a FedEx package to ship the paperwork. Inconvenience. Arguably this is a special case of transaction costs: the cost of your time. Suppose I knew that a certain tax shelter would save me $100 a year in taxes, but it would take me 20 hours a year to do the paperwork or whatever to manage it. I probably wouldn't bother, because my free time is worth more than $5 an hour to me. If the payoff was bigger or if I was poorer, I might be willing. Complexity. Perhaps a special case of 3. If the rules to manage the tax shelter are complicated, it may not be worth the trouble. You have to spend a bunch of time, and if you do it wrong, you may get audited and slapped with fines and penalties. Even if you do it right, a shelter might increase your chance of being audited, and thus create uncertainty and anxiety. I've never intentionally cheated on my taxes, but every year when I do my taxes I worry, What if I make an honest mistake but the government decides that it's attempted fraud and nails me to the wall? Qualification. Again, as others have noted, tax shelters aren't generally, \"\"if you fill out this form and check box (d) you get 50% off on your taxes\"\". The shelters exist because the government decided that it would be unfair to impose taxes in this particular situation, or that giving a tax break encourages investment, or some other worthy goal. (Sometimes that worthy goal is \"\"pay off my campaign contributors\"\", but that's another subject.) The rules may have unintended loopholes, but any truly gaping ones tend to get plugged. So if, say, they say that you get a special tax break for investing in medical research, you can't just declare that your cigarette and whiskey purchases are medical research and claim the tax break. Or you talked about off-shore tax havens. The idea here is that the US government cannot tax income earned in another country and that has never even entered the US. If you make $10 in France and deposit it in a French bank account and spend it in France, the US can't tax that. So American companies sometimes set up bank accounts outside the US to hold income earned outside the US, so they don't have to bring it into the US and pay the high US tax rate. (US corporate taxes are now the highest of any industrialized country.) You could, I suppose, open an account in the Caymans and deposit the income you earned from your US job there. But if the money was earned in the US, working at a factory or office in the US, by a person living in the US, the IRS is not going to accept that this is foreign income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e725b58b1b28fc1dfc5ca7b43ed7c8f",
"text": "\"Did it show just your address, or was your name on it as well? You didn't share how long you've lived at the address either, so it makes me wonder whether a former tenant is the one who filed that paperwork. It's also possible that someone used your address when making a filing. Whether that was deliberate or accidental is hard to discern, as is their intent if it was intentional. It could be accidental -- someone picked \"\"CA\"\" for California when they meant to pick \"\"CO\"\" for Colorado or \"\"CT\"\" for Connecticut...These things do happen. It can't make you feel any better about the situation though. You should be able to go online to the California Secretary of State's website (here) and look up everything filed by the LLC with the state. That will show who the founders were and everything else that is a matter of public record on the LLC. At the very least, you can obtain the registered agent's name and address for the LLC, which you can then use to contact them and ask why your address is listed as the LLC's business address. Once you have that info, you can then contact the Secretary of State and tell them it isn't you so they can do whatever is necessary to correct this. This doesn't sound like a difficult matter to clear up, but it's important to do your homework first and gather as much information as you can before you call the state. Answering \"\"I don't know\"\" won't get you very far with them compared to having the best answers you can about where the mistake started. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49beb5701fd58d0437b4ff5bea88d312",
"text": "I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4df5bb9fc859ff7e608102a75e71a935",
"text": "\"If you are a telecommuter and in good terms with your employer, then all you need is contact your employer and explain your situation. Ask them for a short letter that indicates: \"\"1. they require you to work from a privately rented office (or from a home office for those who prefer working from home), 2. this is one of the terms of your employment, and, 3. they will not reimburse you for this expense.\"\" With this letter in your hand, you satisify both the \"\"convenience of employer\"\" test AND the deduction of the rent for your private office as a unreimbursed employee expense. The IRS cannot expect your employer to open an office branch in your city just for your sake, nor can they expect you to commute to your employer's city for work, which is an impossiblity considering the distance. Additionally, the IRS cannot \"\"force\"\" telecommuters to work from home. The key is to get a letter from your employer. You'd be surprised how easily they are willing to write such letter for you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3ad9a8a7bb35a56f0d3bf3614d21b575
|
Is it worth working at home to earn money? Can I earn more money working at home?
|
[
{
"docid": "fd79e70d24f0235f4a92fb405c565082",
"text": "I think the right question you should ask yourself is: Can i work at home? is it possible? do I have a calm, private place at home to work from? what will be the motivation while working from? If you got answers to these questions, you will find if you can get money from home or not, because any place you can do work from will give you money, just work!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "727191156a6c32b98d3a36796a507b92",
"text": "I don't mean to be rude, but if you have to ask if you can earn a living from home, the answer is 'probably not.' Most people are more financially productive at a traditional workplace, otherwise more people would quit the jobs they hate and work at home or develop their hobbies into businesses. Making a living from home requires being a self-starter and finding clients/customers who accept such arrangements. First, be assured no one earns a living stuffing envelopes, being a mystery online shopper, or selling low to moderate quantities of stuff to their circle of friends. A few earn a living flipping houses, cars, or shares, or stuff on eBay, but with considerable risk, capital, effort, luck, contacts, and experience/skill. A few more find success by inventing something or developing a business. Once again, not as easy as it sounds. You can look for professional work freelancing, or find grunt work on something like vWorker. But these are easily as competitive as the job market, perhaps moreso. In the case of vWorker you are competing against people in southern asia who almost surely can beat you on price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71957febc6c7eb9a64ec44b3403805db",
"text": "\"It completely depends on what type of work you intend to do. Are you intending to run/setup your own business? Or stay with your current employer, but work from home instead of going to the office? If thats the case, then yes it is a good idea, since you will save on commuting costs amongst other things If you are asking about working from home under one of those \"\"work from home piecework\"\" schemes, I would be wary. Many of them require you do an insane amount of piecework, for literally peanuts, so it might not be worth the effort (since you could earn 2, 3x as much in a supermarket shift of the same duration)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "567289a9922a4345fb9b4a0ec017a7b5",
"text": "\"Where I'm from, \"\"extra income\"\" and side jobs are not really a thing. In fact, overworking is seen as a systemic failure. Uber drivers here mainly do it for a living but have to do long hours to meet ends.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3acd0dcf29b3af62860f83615d7cfaf",
"text": "Well, did you move to go to University? For both of those prongs you would first need the skills to create wealth. Remote work really only works will in specific types of jobs. For example, customer service jobs can be done from home. But they typically don't pay a whole lot. Computer programming might be another one where remote work is possible. Maybe a few others depending on the work being done and the demands of the job. I would say that even today most companies would want you to come into work to do your job, whether it be a factory or an office. You would have to live within the range of your workplace. Flex time can be utilized but typically that means working from home part of the time but still coming in other days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6b4d48dae563f6f3dc7b9d654d5b22a",
"text": "If you are going to work on making as much money as humanly possible, then you ought to consider investing in the market. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) agrees that investing in stocks is a fantastic technique to acquire prosperity on your own. Believe it or not, it’s the greatest source of wealth in the history of the world. For that reason, you need to ensure that you get started at the earliest opportunity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4bf0dcb96ce68979ca1b604142bb2d7",
"text": "\"Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of \"\"here is a nice house, live in it\"\". Which do you need more of? If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b59c0bc37af31e47d57ee03486d9b18",
"text": "Might want to cross-post to /r/financialindependence; I'm in a similar situation like yours. The problem is that working hard and really hustling it lost a lot of it's primal motivation because the utility of extra money isn't there. You have to be intrinsically motivated to achieve it, or gain enough satisfaction from the other factors that comes with it (power, ego, etc.). If none of these are super-motivating to you, like it was for me, then you need to find something that is a lot of fun to you, but at the same time still very challenging and the outcome is not certain. For me it turned out that it was active investing. I can scale it up or down as I please (ie: spend 10 hours on it in a day, then spend no time on it for a day) - there's no employees and no customers, so no schedule I have to keep or person I need to keep happy. It takes a while to find that, so you just have to give things a go. However, the difference between a hobby and this is that it's A) a challenge and B) you can actually lose. At least for me, that makes it so much more interesting compared to playing computer games, which I also enjoy very much but get bored of if I spend too much time on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a27d47d6874f98fefe7e802e6ffcff4d",
"text": "Very good point. However, I would say stability. Say I could just continue doing this one the side of my regular job, couldn't I do both? Edit: I don't know why I keep getting down voted... I'm literally just asking valid questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffafbbc578941ac7d6924c00d5454117",
"text": "\"This depends entirely on the kind of \"\"IT\"\" you're doing. A couple of examples to illuminate how wide the term is: To answer your core question: look beyond the title (\"\"IT\"\"), to the function you're providing to the bank, and ask if / how that function can generate money for the bank for better income possibilities; if the answer is \"\"none\"\", figure out which levers are closer to making money, and position yourself as such.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a77fa864f2794db761770a7658e5fa08",
"text": "When I worked for myself it was bad because But Ultimately I gave up my business and went to work for a school teaching, and through a series of other jobs ended up in a very stable reliable trustworthy job. When I was younger the variable paycheck didn't outweigh the freedom. Now that I am a dad I only think about having insurance and a secure job. The other option to consider is having a regular job, and then doing a little side work for yourself. You get all the benefits of both (and all the detractions)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f",
"text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d77ab23210a7114e701f2903f115c064",
"text": "This article is misleading in it's universality of its findings. It does have a control group, which is a good start, but the findings are based on call-center employees whose functions are almost perfectly suited for remote work. In a way, we already knew this because of how much call-center work is outsourced and outside of provincial management (in other words, most companies don't bother housing customer service call centers at company headquarters). Let's see them try to replicate those results with other industries. Treating the ability to work from home as a panacea is just as foolish as believing that workers can't ever be remote. The truth is that individual personalities and, more importantly, an individual's work functions are better suited for remote work than others and it takes good management to understand why they take the strategy they take with regards to remote work. All in all, the study might be a good case study for encouraging remote work among call-center employees, but any further extrapolation of that for other industries is going to be a baseless claim influenced by personal agendas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b040f55eb5844225e628759ba41de6e8",
"text": "Nuestra empresa requiere personas que les guste emprender negocios desde casa, ofrecemos capacitaciones y grandes ingresos por los esfuerzos realizados. Our business applies entrepreneurs with leadership who want to earn extra money from home, offers training and business strategies to expand their enterprise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d0fc452856a00fc1d67abf20d9e2a5c",
"text": "Jobs don't mean anything by themselves. If you are increasing part time positions but not full time there may be no gain in income/productivity. Also if wages aren't increasing but debt is that means the portion of average take home wage that goes towards interest is increasing as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd24a245b63135a04525e1dadd98ca96",
"text": "Let me ask you another question: if that person stayed at home and made a widget instead, would exporting that widget benefit his home country? There is no difference, economically, between the two situations. A foreign worker sending home remittances is no different from a local manufacturer exporting their products. Both are earning export dollars for themselves and their home countries. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Clearly, the answer is yes - this is a good thing or a bad thing but we cannot know which in isolation. However, in general, foreign worker remittances are overwhelmingly beneficial for the host (which gets work done that otherwise would not be done) and the source (which gets export income. With reference to your particular question about local inflation, a rise in exports causes appreciation in the exchange rate i.e. local currency becomes more expensive with respect to (in this case) the Euro. Appreciation in the exchange rate actually puts downward pressure on inflation. However, the absence of our worker from the local economy puts upward pressure on local wages and and hence inflation. Both of these effects are small and other factors will dominate them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ee9ed2e804a5d0b0b1f130dad46ebe6",
"text": "\"Your house doesn't need to multiply in order to earn a return. Your house can provide shelter. That is not money, but is an economic good and can also save you money (if you would otherwise pay rent). This is the primary form of return on the investment for many houses. It is similar for other large capital investments - like industrial robots, washing machines, or automobiles. The value of money depends on: As long as the size and velocity of the money supply changes about as much as the overall economic activity changes, everything is pretty much good. A little more and you will see the money lose value (inflation); a little less and the money will gain value (deflation). As long as the value of inflation or deflation remains very low, the specifics matter relatively little. Prices (including wages, the price of work) do a good job of adjusting when there is inflation or deflation. The main problem is that people tend to use money as a unit of account, e.g. you owe $100,000 on your mortgage, I have $500 in the bank. Changing the value of those numbers makes it really hard to plan for the future! Imagine if prices and wages fell in half: it would be twice as hard to pay off your mortgage. Or if the bank expected massive inflation in the future: they would want to charge you a lot more interest! Presently, inflation is the norm because the government entities, who help adjust how much money there will be (through monetary policy - interest rates and the like - ask about it if you're interested), will generally gradually increase the supply of money a little bit more quickly than the economy in general. They may also be worried that outright deflation over the long term will lead to people postponing purchases (to get more for their money later), harming overall economic activity, so they tend to err on the slightly positive side. The value of money, however, has not really \"\"ordinarily decreased\"\" until the modern era (the 1930s or so). During much of history, a relatively low fixed amount of valuable commodities (gold) served as money. When the economy grew, and the same amount of money represented more economic activity, the money became more valuable, and deflation ensued. This could have the unfortunate effect of deterring investment, because rich jerks with lots of money could see their riches increase just by holding on to those riches instead of doing anything productive with them. And changes in the supply of gold wreaked havoc with the money supply whenever there was some event like a gold rush: Because precious metals were at the base of the monetary system, rushes increased the money supply which resulted in inflation. Soaring gold output from the California and Australia gold rushes is linked with a thirty percent increase in wholesale prices between 1850 and 1855. Likewise, right at the end of the nineteenth century a surge in gold production reversed a decades-long deflationary trend and is often credited with aiding indebted farmers and helping to end the Populist Party’s strength and its call for a bimetallic (gold and silver) money standard. -- The California Gold Rush Today, there is way too little gold production to represent all the growth in world economic activity - but we don't have a gold standard anymore, so gold is valuable on its own merits, because people want to buy it using money, and its price is free to fluctuate. When it gets more valuable, and people pay more for it, mines will go through more effort to locate, extract and refine it because it will be more profitable. That's how most commodities work. For more information on these tidbits of history, some in-depth articles on:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8aae546b5470c00e9891756d61c392a0",
"text": "\"Great question. There are two ways to increase the amount of money you have: It's difficult to decrease your expenses past a certain point, and your question is focused on the first aspect anyway. But it's worth noting that controlling spending is a significant part of accumulating wealth. You need to make more money, and there's no trick to it. Ask for a raise, sure, that can't hurt. But also think about what you need to do to get a higher-paying job. There's a lot to think about: Does you current job have growth potential? Are you doing everything you can do to maximize that potential? If you're just phoning it in and collecting your paycheck, that's not going to make you much more money. But if you're working hard, learning new skills, and have an opportunity to grow into more responsibilities and more money, that's a good start. In my experience, the biggest paycheck increases have come from looking for new opportunities and switching jobs. (BTW, I'm not suggesting quitting your job. You need to always have the new job locked up before quitting the old job!) The wealthiest people I know are self-employed, and they worked hard to build up their companies. Do you work in an industry where you can build your skills to a point where you can go out on your own? Does entrepreneurship interest you? Either way, focus on your job, skills, and maximizing your income potential. Be your own advocate. Make sure your boss knows what a good job you're doing. If you need to start looking for other options, take your time and start looking. The often-quoted line, \"\"the harder I work, the luckier I get\"\" is appropriate.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
434e9f7ee509c3c0aab850358e372a6a
|
Would you withdraw your money from your bank if you thought it was going under?
|
[
{
"docid": "d6cafc2d753914341659939edc4ad0ce",
"text": "There's obviously a lot of discussion surrounding your question, but if I thought a bank was going under, then yes, absolutely I would withdraw my money. Now, we can debate whether me thinking the bank was going under was foolish or not, but if I truly believed it, I can't see why I would sit around and do nothing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fecd060c40759e57d36146351bba198e",
"text": "If the FDIC didn't insure your deposit, there would be a run on EVERY bank, so there is no way the government will let it fail or go broke. It will be backstopped one way or another. So I wouldn't worry about losing my money. The only worry is the hassle of having to deal with the bank failure and getting at your money and getting it out. There could be a few days of illiquidity while the government is stepping in to sort things out. If that scares you or would be a big problem, then I'd find a safer choice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11e8cab4db451b335fa627c009f86f5a",
"text": "I have two different thoughts on this subject.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b6f185f1564ea9d986f606817ea35c5",
"text": "I probably would not take it out, since I have enough layers of backstops: Maybe if I could find a better rate. :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca105b24e81eeba43f353b237476c479",
"text": "\"To the average consumer, the financial health of a bank is completely irrelevant. The FDIC's job is to make it that way. Even if a bank does go under, the FDIC is very good at making sure there is little/no interruption in service. Usually, another bank just takes over the asset of the failing bank, and you don't even notice the difference. You might have a ~24 hour window where your local ATM doesn't work. I also really question the \"\"FDIC is broke\"\" statement. The FDIC has access to additional funding beyond the Deposit Insurance Fund mentioned in your link. It also has the ability to borrow from the Treasury. If you look into the FDIC's report a bit closer, the amount in the \"\"Provision for Insurance Losses\"\" is not just money spent on failing banks. It also includes money that has been set aside to cover anticipated failures and litigation. Saying the FDIC is \"\"broke\"\" is like saying I am \"\"broke\"\" because my checking account balance went down after I moved some money into a rainy-day fund. Failure of the FDIC would signal a failure of our financial system and the government that backs it. If the FDIC fails, your petty checking account would be meaningless anyway. The important things would be non-perishable food, clean water, and guns/ammo. That said, it will be interesting to see the latest quarterly report for the FDIC when it is released next week. The article implies things will look a little better for the FDIC, but we'll see.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7d67dbe7d51cd26ad08f2a4b6c0784d",
"text": "The article you link scares me; but I still have faith that the FDIC will keep me protected. Personally, if the FDIC goes broke, there is something more fundamentally wrong with the government as a whole and dollars won't worry me much. There are lots of issues with the FDIC, and I think the answers lie outside of simply printing more money and funding the FDIC further. There is likely more bad before this storm is over, and I might be ignorant, but I still want to operate normally. My money would stay where it is with things being how I see them in today",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0df4c9f2930e72408863d2d65f19c3d4",
"text": "A routing number and account number are on the bottom of every check. If anybody who ever handled your checks or even saw your checks could just withdraw as much money as they wanted, the whole banking system would need to be reworked. In short, just having that info is not enough. Not legally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e961894f3c0026db5bef446d8368b31",
"text": "\"Definitely this. The fact that it's termed \"\"identity theft\"\" is a great PR spin for banks. Someone else is attempting transactions while fraudulently claiming to be you. You did not lose your identity or even a piece of it. You are still fully you. You are not even involved in the fraudulent transaction! It's a transaction between the bank and the fraudster, and the bank has agreed to some action you did not authorize. They should be responsible for cleanup.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82c00090f214fc6bc97bcd13ce058905",
"text": "If thats how you feel (its how I feel ) then the last thing you want bankers doing is accepting deposits from people who think their money is not being risked, then making loans with it (fractional reserve banking). And fdic is not an answer to that fundamental problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e12e2bbc2bc83aeb34e35bcdddd7952",
"text": "Anyone with a background in finance should have been well aware that the government would swoop in with a bailout of the major banks. Such a scenario was even discussed in money and banking textbooks pre financial crisis. Since I have no excess cash, and wad in senior year of college, I was unable to capitalize on that, but I did invest in the banks in market simulating games 😁",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f3147f6adedde8e9a6bfd15489cca35",
"text": "And then there is the issue of people who actually don't intend to reduce the size of their loan. They only want to pay the interest, so their debt with the bank remains constant. If you are upside down, it means you will not have the financial means to remove the debt. If, for some reason, you are no longer able to pay the bank, you might lose the house. After that you will have no house, but you still have a debt with the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "524cddb28590d076ce9cdaf36faf147c",
"text": "So ... how are you going to have a bank run if you got rid of cash? I suspect big investors will attempt (have already attempted?) to pull their cash, but regular people? Not like running to the ATM will do much good and I don't think they have offshore accounts. Excuse my naïveté, but that's the first thing that came to my mind...",
"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": "0ab045a99c76a8f6c9dac6c9730b8bab",
"text": "Yes, but it's a matter of paper trail and lifestyle. Your $600K guy may get questioned when he makes the deposit, but would show the record of having that money elsewhere. People buy cars with cash (a check) all the time. The guy filing a tax return claiming little to no income or no return at all, is more likely to get flagged than the $100K+ earning couple who happened to be able to save to buy their $25K car every 10 years with cash. On reading the article, the bank had its own concerns. The guy who was trying to withdraw the money was elderly, and the bank seemed pretty concerned to make sure he wasn't about to be scammed. It may not be spelled out as such, but a custodian of one's money does have an obligation to not be party to a potential scam, and the very request for such a huge sum of money in cash is a red flag.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d2d96950af76dbab5eb5dc2f0f4e461",
"text": "I quit diligently reconciling monthly statements some years before everything was online, when I realized that for years before that, every time I thought I found a mistake, it was always my own error. I was spending a fair amount of time (over the years) doing something that wasn't helping me. So I quit. That said, I do look at the statements and/or check the transactions on a regular basis (I now use email notifications of automatic deposits as the trigger, and then look over withdrawals, too) to make sure everything looks appropriate. I'm less concerned about a bank error than I am about identity or account theft.",
"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": "45c3cb28491d6b35f3219f442d3100a6",
"text": "\"These have the potential to become \"\"end-of-the-world\"\" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid. Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default. Take Zimbabwe, for example. Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies. Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dd187f1e0ef63a985126ffbb9c151eb",
"text": "It's the equivalent of you being required to keep some of your savings in a near-zero percent interest savings account vs. being able to invest and grow that capital. Even if the capital requirements were peeled back slightly, (most) banks still hold more than enough capital to absorb extreme losses. Net/net the economy is safer, but less robust than it could be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46e0fd4a0513b1e04e20f5ec1819ed82",
"text": "Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d60f647cfc6e70cf3e87b185dc54f7a",
"text": "One can't, this is a systemic problem and when One bank goes pop, it drags a couple down with it. While swaps should have worked to keep the system safe at one time, when money was real, they now act as anchors that drag the entire chain down because the volume of funny money debt is so great its just not ever getting paid back. Best bet is to burn the Fed down",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ff6faa0c6a161611a0aa310396348e2",
"text": "Yes, there is such possibility. Also, there's a possibility people made your computer, your operation system, your browser, etc. put there some code there that would intercept your communications and steal your money. So could bank clerks (and unlike all other examples, this really happened in real world, numerous times, though usually at smaller banks), ATM makers, etc. In the modern world, you rely on things made by thousands of people, this is a part of modern world's conveniences. You don't have to use it - you can store all your money in a big jar in your basement and nobody but occasional thief breaking in could take it. However, fraudulent unauthorized transactions in most banks can be rolled back, and any transaction is reported to you. So fraud from mint.com people would be quite low on my list of risks. Much bigger risk is that somebody could break into mint.com servers and steal information about your accounts from there or install some malicious code. I believe they have good protections, but no security system is perfect. You need to evaluate how the convenience of using mint.com compares to your personal feeling about this risk. If you feel you couldn't sleep at night knowing somewhere out there there is information about your money - don't use it. I don't worry about it too much as I know the chance of it happening is low and the chance of getting the money back if it happens is high, but if you feel differently - don't do it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
729cbc1a3ab69267284d34efddb89a5c
|
US Banks offering Security Tokens in 2012
|
[
{
"docid": "72b4ba9c05a8ef03a417945fa1512256",
"text": "\"Bank of America \"\"safe-pass\"\" generates a code that is sent to your phone as a text message. Its an optional feature, this happens during log in, if you enter that code correctly, then you are taken to your more traditional login, which also features the weak (but widely heralded) two-factor authentication which shows a picture you chose and a password field. Some other banks do other things, but yes, your craigslist phone verification is generally more secure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bd3c727e2113cfaf0a8352244f5832a",
"text": "I'm looking for another one right now. Here's what I've found: Los Alamos National Bank (www.lanb.com) has tokens ($5?), but I think they only open accounts for New Mexico residents. I've had one for several years. USAA Savings Bank (usaa.com) has tokens ($5 or free, I don't remember). I'm pretty sure you do NOT need to be a USAA member to open an account. I've had one for a couple of years. Several banks (Frost Bank, American National Bank of Texas, Amegy Bank, and probably many, many more) offer them as part of their Treasury Management accounts, meant for big businesses and charged for accordingly. Happy State Bank (in, where else, Happy, Texas) has a web page saying they have them but their services charges were more than I wanted to pay. ClearSky Bank (an Internet bank started by Chesapeake Bank) claims on their web page to have them but I haven't verified that yet. Still looking...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e40081bf86c8ed312f89e22ae781d600",
"text": "Charles Schwab and HSBC offer security tokens.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "42c72db8ab6854be3d6437c02d71e83a",
"text": "Some credit unions also offer them and support Business banking as well. First Tech Credit Union is a great example. They also have the most security-oriented banking website I've seen to date. https://www.firsttechfed.com/ As a side note I've found that Credit Unions are a MUCH better deal for personal and business banking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c544da50457d5a12ce398216816b1995",
"text": "What's also interesting is that JP Morgan is heavily involved in the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, to the point of sponsoring conferences and developing their own client [software](https://www.jpmorgan.com/global/Quorum). Initially this is for private networks but they say they plan to connect to the public chain once it scales better and has stronger privacy features.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7eaf857e169fbc69f25d3bd4304c923b",
"text": "If a 08 crash and bailout happens again anytime soon I don't know if the banks will get to keep control this time around. Their power is directly related to the amount of capital they have and there are enough in Congress that see them as not being loyal enough to front the political capital required to refill the coffers if it is needed. I see the next bailout being the fed making a nationalization attempt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe0594e196adef4e582cb8dc2d250db5",
"text": "\"They're not at all the same. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment method that pays off early investors with deposits from later ones. Fractional reserve banking is the practice of keeping only a fraction of a bank's demand deposits on reserve, while lending out the rest. The reserve requirement is how central banks limit the amount of money that can float around in commercial banks. In the latter case, there is no \"\"later investor\"\" somewhere down near the bottom of a money food chain. Every dollar, regardless of whether it was created fresh from one of the federal reserve banks or created via several chained loans, is worth the same. If the dollars depreciate for whatever reason, they do so for everyone. Now, if you want a good example of a Ponzi scheme that is actually legal, look at Social Security. Edit: A \"\"debt-based society\"\" is separate from fractional-reserve banking. If the Fed creates $1,000,000, the total amount of money that can float around is still capped based on whatever the reserve requirement is. (For a 10% reserve requirement, it's something like $10,000,000.) We have unsustainable debt increases because of lack of self-control on the part of our leaders. The fractional-reserve process helps it along, but it's not the culprit. It's an enabler.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc",
"text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b79d4842956bb4bda053d7609ac5bbc8",
"text": "Despite QE, monetary expansion in the US has gone down for the last 10 years. I am not quite sure what you are asking. Yes banks have trillions at the Fed because of the central bank “money printing,” but none of that is leaking into the economy. Are you referring to central banks around the world purchasing US treasuries? Are you asking what assets are closely connected to treasuries that you can avoid?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81ff158685aad6425bf92e9ab35b5e03",
"text": "\"The Wall Street Journal says in its \"\"For Consumers\"\" section of its infographic: There's also some new agencies (including a \"\"consumer watchdog agency\"\"), and some new rules the SEC can implement, and it lets state pass more laws affecting national banks, but it doesn't look like there's much in particular that it does for consumers right away. Source - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569204575329211031691230.html\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55bd82392b9f03e4190e3d4436bb95c2",
"text": "Thank you. Added to my list. This is very very helpful. I knew about the blockchain and the currency. Unfortunately, I'm not a pedant about differentiating between them with capitalising the first letter. I do not, however, understand Ethereum very well at all. So will read up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53eb897861a508001d58778f913376bb",
"text": "\"Yeah... using let's encrypt for the SSL certs.... which I'm certainly not against, but provides even less guarantee they are who they say they are. High probability of scam. EDIT: Port 22 is wide open which gives me even less faith. EDIT 2: I could not find \"\"Beam\"\" or \"\"Meet Beam\"\" on the FDIC registry either. https://research.fdic.gov/bankfind/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5eced397ba5cbed76c0e24d922c74bc",
"text": "The separation hasn't existed for a long time. I'm not an expert on the subject but it was a gradual process. Money mutual funds invest in repos and even unsecured instruments that fund investment banking activities and that has been around since way before Glass-Steagall was repealed completely. When it morphed into the shadow banking system we know and love today, who knows? What we can be sure of is that retail, insured deposits were being used to fund investment banking decades prior to the 2000 commodity futures modernization act or w/e its called.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb3bbbf3c817b7a173fbd0fcbf065452",
"text": "Your question contains two different concepts: fractional reserve banking and debt-based money. When thinking of these two things I think it is important to analyze these items separately before trying to understand how the whole system works. Fractional Reserve Banking As others have pointed out fractional reserve banking is not a ponzi scheme. It can be fraudulent, however. If a bank tells all its depositors that they can withdrawal their money at any time (i.e. on demand) and the bank then proceeds to loan out some portion of the depositors' money then the bank has committed fraud since there is no way they could honor the depositors' requests for their money if many of them came for their money at one time. This is true regardless of what type of money is deposited - dollars, gold, etc.. This is how most modern banks operate. Debt-based money Historically, the Fed would introduce new money by buying US Treasuries. This means Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) are backed by US Treasuries. I agree that this seems strange. Does this mean if I take my FRNs to the Fed I could redeem them for US Treasuries? But US Treasuries are promises to pay FRNs in the future. This makes my head hurt. Reminds me of the definition for recursion: see recursion. Here is an experiment. What if we wanted to recreate FRNs today and none existed? The US government would offer a note to pay 100 FRNs in one year and pay 5% interest on the note. The Fed would print up its first 100 FRNs to buy the note from the US government. The US government would spend the FRNs. The first 100 FRNs have now entered into circulation. At the end of the note's term the Fed should have 105 FRNs since the government agreed to pay 5% interest on the note. But how is the US government going to pay the interest and principal on the note when only 100 FRNs exist? I think this is the central point to your question. I can come up with only two answers: 1) the Fed must purchase some assets that are not debt based 2) the US government must continue to issue debt that is purchased by newly printed FRNs in order to pay back older debt and interest. This is a ponzi scheme. The record debt levels seem to indicate the ponzi scheme option was chosen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b861a2a39a1b236f3d271befb5740f38",
"text": "It was $13,000 in 1996 and it's $12,800 now, just to save people a click. Edit: and that's only a straight average of accounts and only from Bank of America. It could just be that people have chosen to save with another bank or to keep more money in stocks or retirement accounts rather than savings accounts. This article is pretty much garbage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c06dd8658a400808f0995c1905f5a6bd",
"text": "This depends on the practise and applications available with the Beneficiary Bank. For a corporate customer, the details are show. For Retail customers they are generally not shown.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b56f56cae94bb87ed663c796b17d7e7",
"text": "This is the interesting elephant in the room for the Ali IPO. A large component of Ali's revenue is derived from providing customers with access to manufacturers - these manufacturers derive their revenue from selling counterfeit products, internationally. To allow Ali to go public, effectively legitimises their business activities and leaves you with an organisation that could be comparable to piratebay but for physicals that is considered far more official/legit (read: dangerous).. Still, it doesn't seem to troubling for America's banking industry and thus - I'll be picking up a fair share of stock when this does happen (probably just for the short-term though, hey).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "681a68e3b9bb0ed1f7c21754b288d44c",
"text": "On 2012/05/18 at 15:34:00 UTC (11:34:00 EDT) FB was in chaos mode. The most recent public US trade at that moment was at $40.94, but in the next one second (i.e. before the clock hit 15:34:01) there were several dozen trades as low as $40.76 and as high as $41.00. On 2012/05/30 at 17:21:00 UTC (13:21:00 EDT) the most recent public US trade for FB was at $28.28.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f3110fdef957efa59fcd76665445f4d9
|
Diagnostic Questions to Determine if Renter intends to pay
|
[
{
"docid": "cf35607b8534539b4a3d75e8f5882e5b",
"text": "Firstly, how far behind on rent are they? Have you sent them notices in writing about late rent, and if so how many have you had to send? How often do they say they are going to do things (like pay overdue rent) and they never do? To tell you the truth IMHO, if they are starting to be regularly late in rent payments and they don't do things they say they are going to do - then it is time to evict them. In NSW Australia, if the tenant is more than 2 weeks late in rent, and prior to them reaching 2 weeks late you have called them asking for late rent and sent notices, you can evict the tenants. If the tenants do not leave you can apply to the Tribunal to get them out and ask for outstanding money to be paid to you. However, if it does get to this stage, the tenants may be pissed off so may do some damage to the property in retaliation. Then you have to go back to the Tribunal to get the Tenant's Bond (Security Deposit) and any other funds to repair any damages done to your place. The longer you leave it the worse it will get. We had some tenants similar to this which we finally got out earlier this year. They would say they would pay rent due by the end of the week and no money would come by the end of the week. We took them to Tribunal and got them out, and we got the Bond plus unpaid rent and other money for damages and leaving the place dirty (over and above the Bond) awarded to us - just under $4K. The tenants said they couldn't pay and so went on a payment plan to pay about $135 every 2 weeks. They didn't pay any of the payments, so then we went to the local court to get a sheriff to go to their new place and take their property. The must have gotten scared from this because they approached the local court and agreed to pay $60 per week. We have currently received about 10 payments so it will be a long time before we get all our money back. As I said the longer you leave it the worse it can get. You should also look at improving your criteria for selecting new tenants. I have given an answer to this question How to choose a good tenant as a private landlord? Hopefully it can give you some ideas of what to ask for when searching for your next tenant. Update due update in Question Six weeks behind in rent is quite a bit to be behind. If the landlord had been asking the tenant to pay the late rent during this period and the tenant had been giving excuses why the rent was late and saying they would pay it by a certain time but never did - it is a big sign that they will tell you lies. If this is the first time they have been late in paying rent and now they are back up to date with the rent, you might want to give them one more chance. If this is a pattern that happens regularly it is better to get them out, as it will happen again, you will get in an argument with them and then they might stop paying rent altogether. You can usually gain a better perspective of the tenants from their action rather than their words - that is why ascertaining their past rental history is so important when finding a new tenant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcfb94807ecbf6a57b0435b1d135e4c6",
"text": "\"Assuming the renter was properly vetted, the only question worth asking is \"\"what has changed in your life?\"\" Perhaps one of the earners has lost a job, or has moved out because a couple has broken up. If nothing has changed but they just don't feel like paying you, start the eviction process. If something has changed and you assess that it's temporary (I lent my brother money and he didn't pay me back - I'll be behind for a few months but I will catch up; my employer went out of business and didn't pay me for the last two weeks - I have a new job already and am waiting for my first paycheque) then perhaps you are willing to wait. If something has changed and it seems pretty permanent then you might reluctantly start the process. Depending on how long it takes where you live, the renter might get things under control before you finish.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f844bc2e005a7a9e65887aa5f7ce63e9",
"text": "I think what you have here is actually TWO agreements with your sister, and explicitly splitting it into two agreements will bring some clarity. The first is ownership of and responsibility for the building. The second is each of your personal use of a unit. Here's what you do: Treat ownership as if you're not living there. Split the down payment, the monthly mortgage, taxes and insurance, responsibility for cost of maintenance, etc. as well as the ownership and benefit of the building 70%/30%. Put all that in a contract. Treat it like a business. Second, lease those units to yourselves as if you were tenants. And yes, I means even with leases. This clarifies your responsibilities in a tenant capacity. More to the point, each of you pays rent at the going rate for the unit you occupy. If rent from all three units equals the monthly expenses, nothing more needs to be done. If they're more than the monthly expenses, then each of you receives that as business income on that 70%/30% breakdown. If those three rents are less than the monthly expenses, then each of you are required to make up the difference, again at 70%/30%. Note: if any of those expenses are utilities, then they should be apportioned via the rent -- just as you would if you'd rented out the whole building to strangers. 2nd note: all that can be done with ledger entries, rather than moving money around, first as rent, then as expense payments, then as payouts. But, I think it will benefit all of you to explicitly pay rent at first, to really clarify your dual relationship as joint owners and as tenants. Final note: I think this is a stickier situation than you may think it is. Familial relationships have been destroyed both by going into business together, and by renting to family members. You're doing both, and mixing the two to boot. I'm not saying it will destroy your relationship, but that there's a solid risk there. Relationship destruction comes from assumptions and vague verbal agreements. Therefor, for the sake of all of you, put everything in writing. A clear contract for the business side, and clear leases for the tenant side. It's not about trust -- it's about understood communication and positive agreement on all important points.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "026e024f3cd4152250820734cc7b61c0",
"text": "This is business as usual, except that you need to keep in mind that the corporate entity is separate from the individual. As such - all the background checks and references should be with regards to the actual renter - the corporation. You should be cautious as it is not so easy to dissolve an individual (well... Not as easy, and certainly not as legal), as it is to dissolve the corporation. So you may end up with a tenant who doesn't pay and doesn't have to pay because the actual renter, the corporation, no longer exists. So check the corporation background - age, credit worthiness, tax returns/business activity, judgements against, etc etc, as you would do for an individual.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ba2f8a6e5b6aa6217e8e82245d0ae7b",
"text": "OP, I'd wait until you see the itemized list. And then go from there. From the sound of it, it seems that the repairs is pretty major. I'd double check the lease contract to see if there were any clauses/term that made the tenant responsible. This could be from appliances to repairs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05fdd68eae7c96476e7ec9e175d4cc54",
"text": "This is typically an issue for local law and regulation. Once one person moves out, I would recommend one of the following options: Generally speaking, if there are clear records of all of the payments made by both parties, all of the costs associated with the maintenance and who made what use of the place, the final ownership can be resolved fairly even in the absence of a clear agreement. The pain and hassle to do it, though, is generally not worth the effort - even if it's an amicable relationship between the two owners. Your best bet is to agree as early as possible on what you plan to do, and to write it down - if you didn't have a contract before moving in together, write one up now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20ca120add697e990f8a83fa86dcf8f7",
"text": "It isn't EFT, but you might mention to your tenant, that many banks offer a Bill Pay service (example) where the bank will automatically mail a check to the right person for you. I have my rent setup this way. My bank will send a rent check directly to my landlord 5 days before it is due.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb4e4ab42d0f4b92eec1073b44081f8c",
"text": "Renters' Insurance should also have some level of liability coverage. I.e.: if you caused a flooding because you went on and broke the pipe, or a fire because you smoked in the bed - there should be some level of coverage for that. However, most of the damage the tenant can do is probably not accidental. If you broke the pipe - you probably did something wrong. If you caused fire by smoking in bed - you obviously did something wrong. While seemingly accidental, you're deeply at fault. Insurance companies are not in business for rewarding risky behavior. Accidents where the tenant has nothing to do with what happened (earthquakes, fires because of, say, wiring, flooding because it rained too much, or bird flying into a window and shattering it) - are covered by the homeowner's insurance. In any case, talk to your insurance agent about your specific policy and concerns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f43747a6b2e073026321a122a0d9398",
"text": "\"When you buy a house, the real estate agent or title company normally draws up a big sheet with all the costs and payments involved. There are typically two columns: one for amounts paid to or paid by the seller, and another for amounts paid to or paid by the buyer. Who is responsible for what is a legal question: this is pretty fixed. But it's very common for the seller to agree to pay some portion of the buyer's closing costs. In any house sale I've ever been involved in, whether as buyer or seller, nobody bothers to say which costs the seller is agreeing to pay. Rather, the seller just agrees to a number. Then somewhere on the sheet of costs there will be a line that says \"\"closing costs paid by seller\"\" or some such wording, and then it shows a minus to the seller and a plus to the buyer. (Or something equivalent, depending on how the sheet is organized.) The amount is negotiated. When you make an offer, you'll say whatever numbers you are prepared to offer, like \"\"I offer to pay $100,000 for the house, seller to pay $3,000 of closing costs\"\". And whatever other conditions, seller to repair the leak in the roof, whatever. It makes sense for the seller to pick up some share of the closing costs, because the seller normally walks away with cash in hand while the buyer is struggling to come up with enough cash to make a down payment and pay all the closing costs, i.e. the seller probably can afford to give up some cash while the buyer may be struggling to come up with cash. The only costs I can think of that I've had before closing day are, (a) Earnest money. (b) Inspection. (c) Credit check or application fee to bank. Earnest money is applied to the purchase price at closing, so it's pretty much a moot point. The application fee is a potential deal-breaker. I've never heard of a seller agreeing to pay this, but I guess they could. But if you can't get the loan, you probably won't buy the house, so the seller would be out money for nothing. Everything else is normally paid on closing day. They total up all the costs and all the money floating around and at the end the seller gets one check that is the net of everything and the buyer writes one check that is the net of everything, and the realtor or title company deals with getting the money to the right people. So there's normally no issue of paying things as they come up. You do it all at once.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a811ba05b575681ba2d20adffe6a2fc",
"text": "This is something you are going to have to work out with the leasing company because your goal is to get them to make an exception to their normal rules. I'm a little surprised they wouldn't take 6 months pre-payment, plus documentation of your savings. One option might be to cash in the bonds (since you said they are mature), deposit them in a savings account, and show them your account balance. That documentation of enough to pay for the year, plus an offer to pay 6 months in advance would be pretty compelling. Ask the property manage if that's sufficient. And if the lease is for one year and you're willing to pay the entire year in advance, I can't see how they would possibly object. If your employment prospects are good (show them your resume and explain why you are moving and what jobs you are seeking) a smart property manager would realize you'll be an excellent, low-risk tenant and will make an effort to convince the parent company that you should live there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4ba0d02eef394fb45b1f529b16dd894",
"text": "There are probably specific laws that control landlord/tenant rent disputes. But your friend's argument assumes that there aren't. Let's assume that there aren't. So there are two possibilities. Either the contract directly addresses this issue or it doesn't. If the contract directly and specifically addresses this issue, then that controls. Your friend is not claiming that it is specifically addressed. So the general principle is this -- when something occurs within a contract that wasn't explicitly discussed by the parties, courts will try to figure out what the parties likely would have agreed to had they discussed the specific issue (without changing the agreed terms of the contract). This should produce the result that is fair to both parties. Your friend is arguing then that had he and the landlord discussed the issue, the landlord would have agreed that in the event he is no longer able to accept credit cards easily, your friend could live there rent free. That doesn't seem right to me. Does it seem right to you? Much more likely they would have agreed that he might have some leeway to work out a new payment scheme and maybe some late rent should be forgiven if he made an attempt to pay on time but couldn't make arrangements. But I don't see more than that being reasonable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58adb939b72e4e204fe83ac37fdbc96c",
"text": "To point #1: We are moving but I don't know If I can afford the rent as the family grows I would start by looking at your debt-to-income ratio. In the US, most banks look at this for mortgage purposes, but it also gives you a general idea of what monthly mortgage payments will be comfortable given your particular financial situation. Think of it this way, if a bank is unwilling to lend you money because of a high debt-to-income level, this indicates that you have very little leeway with regard to your budget. So a lower number indicates that you will have more flexibility and comfort with meeting your rent/mortgage obligations when unforeseen bills pop up. The article below indicates having < 43% DTI is ideal (in the US). Here's a link to a debt to income calculator and some extra info (I suggest finding one aimed at the UK market): WellsFargo debt to income calculator Why is the 43% debt to income ratio important? Point #2: How can a person measure how much to spend on food, car, bills or rent from his salary? Is there a formula to keep in check? Other answers have addressed how to make a budget, so I will not repeat that. However, here's another angle with regards to spending/saving. This article recommends 50/30/20: According to the popular 50/30/20 rule, you should reserve 50 percent of your budget for essentials like rent and food, 30 percent for discretionary spending, and at least 20 percent for savings. Read more at: https://www.moneyunder30.com/how-much-should-you-save-every-month-2 In the real world, these goals may not be realistic, and different people have different ideas about how aggressive to be with regards to savings. However, you can get a general idea and adapt for your particular needs. Point 3: I find myself looking at my account every single day and get tensed and sad because almost whenever the money (pay) comes in I freak out that after everything there is nothing for us to enjoy or save.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af82ecd5c9fe20d9396c3553107d157",
"text": "Explain the situation to a landlord and offer to prepay a few months of rent in advance as a guarantee. This may or may not work, but being honest and committed may just be the answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95256edb22555049c2e5d130e88e5287",
"text": "\"Get everything in writing. That includes ownership %, money in, money out, who is allowed to use the place, how much they need to pay the other partners, who pays for repairs, whether to provide 'friends and family' discounts, who is allowed to sell, what happens if someone dies, how is the mortgage set up, what to do if one of you becomes delinquent, etc. etc. etc. Money and friends don't mix. And that's mostly because people have different ideas in their head about what 'fair' means. Anything you don't have in writing, if it comes up in a disagreement, could cause a friendship-ending fight. Even if you are able to agree on every term and condition under the sun, there's still a problem - what if 5 years from now, someone decides that a certain clause isn't fair? Imagine one of you needs to move into the condo because your primary residence was pulled out from under you. They crash at the condo because they have no where else to go. You try to demand payment, but they lost their job. The agreement might say \"\"you must pay the partnership if you use the condo personally, at the standard monthly rate * # of days\"\". But what is the penalty clause - is everything under penalty of eviction, and forced sale of the condo and distribution of profits? Following through on such a penalty means the friendship would be over. You would feel guilty about doing it, and also about not doing it [at the same time, your other partner loses their job, and can't make 1/3rd of the mortgage payments anymore! They need the rent or the bank will foreclose on their house!] etc etc etc Even things like maintenance - are the 3 of you going to do it yourselves? Labour distributed how? Will anyone get a management fee? What about a referral fee for a new renter? Once you've thought of all possible circumstances and rules, and drafted it in writing, go talk to a lawyer, and maybe an accountant. There will be many things you won't have considered yet, and paying a few grand today will save you money and friends in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ca1b59e45e7dd98ad3c7f6ba8724c30",
"text": "They call you because that is their business rules. They want their money, so their system calls you starting on the 5th. Now you have to decide what you should do to stop this. The most obvious is to move the payment date to before the 5th. Yes that does put you at risk if the tenant is late. But since it is only one of the 4 properties you own, it shouldn't be that big of a risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08666a519cef7d9cc65ae83d41f3a360",
"text": "It sounds extremely fishy to me. Who has $750 in cash in his pocket and uses it to pay rent?? I would ask the tenant to show a statement from her checking account which shows that she took out that much cash in the days before the 'payment', and if she cannot provide it (or another convincing explanation), I would consider it a lie and request payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28fbd6147331296e24091a48b5f615a7",
"text": "It is important to understand that when or before you received services from your medical provider(s), you almost certainly signed a document stating that you understand that you are fully responsible for the entire bill, even though the provider may be willing to bill the insurer on your behalf as a service. In almost all cases, this is the arrangement, so it is very unlikely that you will be able to dispute the validity of the bill, since you did receive the service and almost certainly agreed to be fully responsible for the payments. With regard to the discounts, your medical provides have likely contracted with your insurer to provide services at a certain price or discount level, so I would base all of your negotiations with the providers and/or the collectors on those amounts. They can't legitimately bill you for the full amount since you are insured by a company they have a contract with, and you are not self-pay/uninsured, and the fact that they haven't been paid by your insurer doesn't change that, because the discount likely depends on the contact they have with your insurer and not whether or not they are billed/paid by your insurer. Please note - this is a common arrangement, but I'd recommend that you verify this with your insurer. Unfortunately, payment in 90+ days is often typical by insurance standards, so it's not yet clear to me whether or not your insurer has broken any laws such as a Prompt Pay law, or violated the terms of your policy with them (read it!). However, you need to find out which claims rep/adjuster is handling your claims and follow up with them until the payments are made. It's not personal, so make this person's life miserable until it is done and call them so often that they know it's you by the caller ID. I would also recommend contacting the collector(s), and letting them know that you don't have the money and so will not be able to pay, provide them with copies of the EOBs that state that the insurance company plans to pay the providers, and then ignore their calls/letters until the payments are made. When they call, simply reiterate that you don't have the money and that your insurance company is in the process of paying the bills. You have to expect that you will be dealing with a low-paid employee that is following a script. You are just the next person on their robo-call list, and they are not going to understand that you don't have a pile of money laying around with which to pay them, even if you tell them repeatedly. Make sure that you at no point give them access to any of your financial accounts, such as a checking or savings account, or a debit card - they will access it and clean you out. It is likely that your insurance provider will pay the providers directly since they were likely billed by the providers originally. If the providers have sold the debt to the collectors (and are not just employing a collector for debt they still own), you may have to follow up with the providers as well and make sure that the collection activity stops, since the providers may also need to forward the payments to the collectors once they are paid by the insurance company. Of course, if the insurer refuses to pay the claims, at that point I would recommend meeting with a lawyer to seek to force them to pay.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
767198571577fc5f7eb535f87350e984
|
Pay online: credit card or debit card?
|
[
{
"docid": "f61ca8c9f06ada8ee5abe94edec796dd",
"text": "Credit card, without a doubt. The reason is dispute resolution. If you dispute a charge on debit card - the money has left your account already, and if the dispute was accepted - you'll get it back. If. Eventually. In the mean time your overdraft will be missing $$$. For credit cards, you can catch a fraud action before the money actually leaves your pocket and dispute it then. In this case the charge is set aside, and you will only be required to actually pay if the dispute is rejected. I.e.: The money stays in your pocket, until the business proves that the charge is legit. In both cases, if the dispute is justified (i.e.: there was indeed a fraud) neither you nor the bank will lose money at the bottom line, it's just who's got the money during the dispute resolution process (which may be lengthy) that matters.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a89bd74e7a3d5b571288ebb11b2dacc4",
"text": "\"I completely agree with @littleadv in favor of using the credit card and dispute resolution process, but I believe there are more important details here related to consumer protection. Since 1968, US citizens are protected from credit card fraud, limiting the out-of-pocket loss to $50 if your card is lost, stolen, or otherwise used without your permission. That means the bank can't make you pay more than $50 if you report unauthorized activity--and, nicely, many credit cards these days go ahead and waive the $50 too, so you might not have to pay anything (other than the necessary time and phone calls). Of course, many banks offer a $50 cap or no fees at all for fraudulent charges--my bank once happily resolved some bad charges for me at no loss to me--but banks are under no obligation to shield debit card customers from fraud. If you read the fine print on your debit card account agreement you may find some vague promises to resolve your dispute, but probably nothing saying you cannot be held liable (the bank is not going to lose money on you if they are unable to reverse the charges!). Now a personal story: I once had my credit card used to buy $3,000 in stereo equipment, at a store I had never heard of in a state I have never visited. The bank notified me of the surprising charges, and I was immediately able to begin the fraud report--but it took months of calls before the case was accepted and the charges reversed. So, yes, there was no money out of my pocket, but I was completely unable to use the credit card, and every month they kept on piling on more finance fees and late-payment charges and such, and I would have to call them again and explain again that the charges were disputed... Finally, after about 8 months in total, they accepted the fraud report and reversed all the charges. Lastly, I want to mention one more important tool for preventing or limiting loss from online purchases: \"\"disposable\"\", one-time-use credit card numbers. At least a few credit card providers (Citibank, Bank of America, Discover) offer you the option, on their websites, to generate a credit card number that charges your account, but under the limits you specify, including a maximum amount and expiration date. With one of these disposable numbers, you can pay for a single purchase and be confident that, even if the number were stolen in-transit or the merchant a fraud, they don't have your actual credit card number, and they can never charge you again. I have not yet seen this option for debit card customers, but there must be some banks that offer it, since it saves them a lot of time and trouble in pursuing defrauders. So, in short: If you pay with a credit card number you will not ever have to pay more than $50 for fraudulent charges. Even better, you may be able to use a disposable/one-time-use credit card number to further limit the chances that your credit is misused. Here's to happy--and safe--consumering!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9a85b57f55b37b6283f502632d9ee1d",
"text": "One more thing to favor the card. Extended warranty, or damage coverage. An iPad, if dropped on a hard surface, stands a good chance of breaking. Apple isn't going to cover that, as it's not a defect. Many credit cards offer free coverage for breakage of this type as well as doubling the warranty up to a year. This second year of coverage is worth about 10% of the item cost. To be clear, I'm talking about running the expense through a card and paying in full, some call it credit no different than those who carry a balance month to month and pay 18% interest. I believe if I have the money to spend on an item, and use the card to get that coverage along with the benefits others posted, it's a convenience, nothing more. Some people who use certain budgeting methods like to set up a payment each week so the bill comes in close to zero. Whatever works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1492c7d7a160f55fad97eb6c89942dcc",
"text": "I use another solution: debit card with an account kept empty most of the time and another account in the same bank without any card. I keep the money on the second card-less account, and when I want to buy something, I instantly transfer the appropriate amount to the account with the card and pay. That way money is on the account tied to a debit card only for a minute before payment, and normally it is empty - so even if someone would try to fraudulently use my card number - I don't care - the transaction will be rejected. I think its the perfect solution - no fraud possible, and I don't have to worry about possibly having to bother calling my bank and requesting a chargeback, which is stressful and a waste of time and harmful to peace of mind (what if they refuse the chargeback)? I prefer to spend a minute before each transaction to transfer the money between the two accounts, and that time is not a waste, because I use it to reconsider the purchase - which prevents impulse-buying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f09fbc4c81443f880e6e63a4bb6cfb3c",
"text": "In the UK it is almost always better to purchase with a credit card for transactions above £100 but below £30,000. This is due to Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which makes your credit card company jointly liable if something goes wrong. In other words, if you buy something worth £1000 with your credit card, the company fails to deliver for any reason and you cannot get a refund from them directly, you are entitled to make a claim from your credit card company for the full amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92bc54545894a84958a397e020d8c194",
"text": "\"Nowadays, some banks in some countries offer things like temporary virtual cards for online payments. They are issued either free of charge or at a negligible charge, immediately, via bank's web interface (access to which might either be free or not, this varies). You get a separate account for the newly-issued \"\"card\"\" (the \"\"card\"\" being just a set of numbers), you transfer some money there (same web-interface), you use it to make payment(s), you leave $0 on that \"\"card\"\" and within a day or a month, it expires. Somewhat convenient and your possible loss is limited tightly. Check if your local banks offer this kind of service.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "be1e573ee5dca62d49e337262a6e5084",
"text": "There are quite a few advantages to credit cards in the uk. But don't borrow on them past the grace period. Set up a direct debit to pay amount in full.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fcc289f55e8fd85bb987f6f218ff4fe",
"text": "If you are solvent enough, and organised enough to pay your credit card bill in full each month, then use the credit card. There are no disadvantages and several plus points, already mentioned. Use the debit card when you would be surcharged for using the credit card, or where you can negotiate a discount for not subjecting the vendor to credit card commission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83f758c9b6e7d0361a0f2e31ea2af083",
"text": "\"Just to add about using debit card as \"\"credit\"\" vs \"\"debit\"\" way: In addition to the difference of having to enter the PIN when using \"\"debit\"\" mode (vs having to sign in \"\"credit\"\" mode), for stores that offer cash back (i.e. get cash out of your account at the same time as paying), you can only get cash back when using \"\"debit\"\" mode.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2934083d7145bb30326fe179433f8a1e",
"text": "Credit Cards when I can. The reason if there is fraud or disputed charges (like I very much disagree with the cell phone charge) a debit card is already gone and I have to get the money back, versus a credit card where I haven't paid anybody anything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a682f2cbbdf005cda229bd17b4176713",
"text": "Etiquette doesn't really come into the picture here. The business offers a service and I choose to accept it. Personally, I use my debit card as much as possible. For every transaction, I record it in my checkbook. Then, when I do reconciling, I know exactly how much I paid for various categories of stuff. Good for budgeting. Most often my purchases are over $10 but when they aren't, I have no qualms about using the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62eb9305ec5ccbdfe1d0dd52c7dd9840",
"text": "When you swipe your credit card, the terminal at the store makes a request of your bank, and your bank has only a few seconds to accept or reject the transaction. Once the transaction is accepted by your bank, it appears in the Pending transactions. At the end of the business day, the store submits all of the final transactions for the day to their bank in a batch, and the banks all trade transactions in a batch, and money is sent between banks. This is the process that takes a couple of days, and after this happens, you see the transaction move from your Pending transactions into the regular transactions area. Most of the time, the pending transaction and the final transaction are the same. However, there are cases where it is different. A couple of examples: With a credit account, the fact that the final amount is not known for a few days is no big deal: after all, you don't have any money in the account, and if you end up spending more than you have, the bank will happily let you take your time coming up with the money (at a steep cost, of course). With a debit card tied to your checking account, the transaction is handled the same way, as far is the store is concerned. However, your bank is not going to run the risk of you overdrawing your checking account. They also are not going to run the risk of you withdrawing money from your account that is needed to cover pending transactions. So they usually treat these pending transactions as final transactions, deducting the pending transaction from your account balance immediately. When the final transaction comes through, they adjust the transaction, and your balance goes up or down accordingly. This is one of the big drawbacks to using a debit card, in my opinion. If a bad pending transaction comes through, you are out this money until it gets straightened out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56835c16340b124ccf9801b3f8d8f94b",
"text": "My reason for not using direct debit is #4 on Dheer's list. I just don't know where exactly I'm going to have what balance on what day, because I usually don't leave more than $100-$200 on my checking, all my cash is in Savings. I also don't want to direct debit from Savings in order to not break the 6-withdrawals limit accidentally. I use direct debit to my credit card where its available, but most places charge for that and I don't want to pay the extra fee. So, I prefer to pay my bills manually. What I don't understand is the people who pay the credit card bills when the statement arrives. I haven't received a credit card statement in years. Don't they have on-line access? Can't they set reminders there? If so - throw the card away, and get a normal one. Same with mailing checks, by the way. I'm still not even half done with the free checks I got from Washington Mutual 5 years ago. I almost never write checks. All the bills are paid online, whether through bill-pay service or an ACH transfer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5964e038b78de817efa3fe3d15bc7e0b",
"text": "You can use the debit card for practically any purchase that you make. You'll have to take the usual precautions and then a few additional ones. Cards make your life really easy and convenient with some basic precautions. All the best for your travel and stay in the USA. My two cents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3989fde6b80584738b3cc00351aa6b8",
"text": "A search quickly led to http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/debit-card-credit-card-difference-charges/ which shows the difference in merchant fees charged. A $200 charge costs $3.50-$3.60, a debit charge, $2.34-$2.39 but a PIN Debit, $1.87. The debit cards are a full percent less cost to the merchant, so the money collected is less to use for rewards. (I can't help but wonder how my card gives me 2% cash back, no fee, when I never pay interest.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61b0685c3c238b673e542d11a009bcaf",
"text": "I'm not certain if you can get a debit card with it, but if you have a PNC in your area, they have a special kind of account designed around teaching financial literacy to children: https://www1.pnc.com/sisforsavings/tour.html . I'm not sure if you can get a debit card for the child or not, but the custodian gets one I believe, and the child gets a special online login to manage the money, so if you don't mind the name issue, it might be worth looking into. If you don't have PNC, maybe one of the banks in your area have a similar program?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c04f6dc0d7acbc634d4a02bf5166519",
"text": "\"I think it's worth pointing out explicitly that the biggest difference between a credit card (US/Canada) and a debit card (like your French carte de crédit) is that with a credit card, it's entirely possible to not pay the bill or to pay only the \"\"minimum payment\"\" when asked. This results in you owing significantly more money due to interest, which can snowball into higher and higher levels of debt, and end up getting rapidly out of control. This is the reason why you should ALWAYS pay off the ENTIRE balance every month, as attested to in the other answers; it's not uncommon to find people in the US with thousands of dollars of debt they can't pay off from misuse of credit cards.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "000e9d5c76cf02bf83b822bf0370944a",
"text": "\"Using cash instead of a debit card lets you see in real time how much cash you have left and where it's going. It's a lot \"\"harder\"\" to see the cash disappear from your wallet than it is to swipe the plastic (whether it's a debit or credit card). Using cash is a way to keep the funds in check and to keep spending within a budget (i.e. you can't spend it if you don't physically have the cash anymore).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3884d8045ae2d4c7950e7bd887f9b506",
"text": "It depends on your bank and your terms of service, but using the card one way or the other may affect things such as how long it takes to process, what buyer protections you have, etc. It also affects the store as I believe they are charged differently for debit vs credit transactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef4425720fc7d104b359eb30f87b432a",
"text": "In Canada, there are many stores that take debit (Interac) but don't take Visa or MasterCard. For example, a corner store. In the US the reverse is often true: every tiny place seems to take Visa or MasterCard, but not debit. A Visa debit card looks like a Visa card to the merchant. It therefore has the benefit of being usable at places that only take Visa. (Substitute MasterCard as necessary.) This benefit is very small in Canada, less so elsewhere. Meanwhile the money is actually coming out of your bank account just like a debit card, which therefore has the benefit that you're not borrowing money, can't accidentally overspend, and run no risk of incurring interest charges. It is also a way to get what appears to be a credit card when you can't qualify for credit. If you do the majority of your spending in Canada, you don't need a Visa or MasterCard debit card. Your regular debit card (Interac) will work fine for you. If you have a credit card anyway (from another bank or whatever) then again, you don't need a debit card that can pretend to be a credit card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca1148de0b8d15d51c11b85fd3195e67",
"text": "Linking the card is primarily to give you (and Paypal) a fall-back option for funding your spending if your bank account doesn't have sufficient funds to process the charge. If the bank account has sufficient funds, it will work fine in many cases without a credit card. If you have both linked (bank and a credit card), Paypal will transfer funds immediately, as Paypal knows it has an option for getting the funds if the bank has insufficient funds. However, if you have no credit card linked or remove your only card: If you remove your only card and have a confirmed bank account, you’ll no longer be able to make instant bank payments. Instead they’ll be sent as eChecks, which take 3 to 4 working days to process. This may not matter in many cases, but it may delay things some. There may also be services who require immediate payment (and won't support PayPal if it's not immediate). There may also be some functional limitations. The one I see is primarily that some services that are geo-location-specific, Spotify for one example, use the credit card to verify that you are in a particular location (in Spotify's case, for licensing purposes). They don't seem to accept Paypal unless it's linked to a credit or debit card (even if it's verified via a bank account). I'm not sure if this is common with other services, but it's something to consider.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0b19748885e134b21ab1b8d6ff510102
|
What are the best software tools for personal finance?
|
[
{
"docid": "dde75a1e21f7b47ec49b3adab2452970",
"text": "Mint.com—Easy solution to provide insight into finances. Pros: Cons:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5757b6e4e418452ae0693563db8b0ec",
"text": "GnuCash—Great for the meticulous who want to know every detail of their finances. Pros: Cons:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3af0ee6932e3f2b938450a96bbcf10e",
"text": "I like You Need A Budget (YNAB) Pros: Cons:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d108e28da3faeb8cdeb696841eb11be",
"text": "Excel Pros: Cons:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f124aa4001a9d7b601f65bc11e8e9b50",
"text": "Intuit Quicken. Pros: Cons:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0943a082c5bd10707421468ccb4a3c56",
"text": "I'm a big fan of buxfer.com",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19b43d6dbb8d9a0251a001eba1504725",
"text": "I just switched (from the abandoned, but good MS Money) to Moneydance 2010",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "deff6a9937e2a877ed36023bb1a286d1",
"text": "http://www.Mvelopes.com Mvelopes is envelope-style budgeting in an online application. I've tried all of the other applications and I choose to pay for this one for the following reasons:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baab575450a4d7464f33b0d04dd73f0c",
"text": "For Mac it's definitely iFinance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ab84a4012b949349f3fa5c4f201402e",
"text": "I use iBank for Mac to keep track of my expenses. I also use the iPhone version since they can sync over Wi-Fi and I can capture expenses right on the spot instead of trying to remember what I spent on when I turn on my laptop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1724fde15d70a99493b9a8accf23f30b",
"text": "KMyMoney Pros: Cons:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d2ce9825af8a8cde4a7bcb4467d89bc",
"text": "For iPhone: iExpenseIt",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43971a28889cd01e188d721a276ae8a9",
"text": "Money Manager Ex PROS: CONS",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4efeb188c0d8b2f8af4548ef322ba59",
"text": "Emergency Account Vault (Windows) I use it to store info about all of my accounts/assets in an encrypted document. It's more for keeping track of everything that is in your name than managing money. Good for situations when you need to quickly look up info about a specific account you own.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fad2f2893d5c2be6029ac8d3af9dc96a",
"text": "For any android device you can try: Daily Expense Manager - to track your expenses and a host of other apps to suit your specific needs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "46bc1213fb52a6c9ecdc1047f6d59daa",
"text": "For double entry bookkeeping, personal or small business, GnuCash is very good. Exists for Mac Os.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb7297662734c48964eb593b905aee35",
"text": "Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "268cd755684c231e913f38fbc07eafd4",
"text": "Long time Quicken user, but I have Bootcamp on my Mac, and one reason is so I can run Quicken Windows. That's one solution. You didn't mention what version of the Mac OS you're running, but Bootcamp is one alternative if you have (or can purchase) a Windows license. Be advised, Bootcamp 4, which is available with OS 10.7 (Lion) and OS 10.8 (Mountain Lion), officially supports Windows 7 only. Quicken running under Bootcamp isn't perfect, but it's better than any Mac version, and Quicken 2013 has a mobile app that allows you to view your data & enter transactions via your mobile. The Mac Version of Quicken has been panned by users. I do use Windows for work-related stuff, so I have a reason for running Windows besides using Quicken. I've read that Intuit has a market share of more than 70% in the personal finance software sector, and at this point it seems pretty clear that they are not interested in pursuing a larger share via Mac users. So if we ever see a highly functional version of Quicken for the Mac OS, it won't be any time soon. I've not used other products, but there are many reviews out there which rank them, and some consistently come to the front. Top 10 Reviews Mac Personal Finance Software 2013; WeRockYourWeb Personal Finance Software Rankings includes many Web-based alternatives; Personally, I'm not real enthusiastic about posting my personal financial data on someone's Web site. I have nothing to hide, but I just can't get comfortable with cloud-based personal finance software providers that are combing through my data, Google-like, to generate revenue. Too, it seems an unnecessary risk giving a third party a list of all my account numbers, user names, and passwords. I know that information is out there, if one has the right sort of access, but to my way of thinking, using a cloud-based personal finance software application makes it more out there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e398e303fb3180307362ca764a3a80b9",
"text": "\"As your financial situation becomes more complex, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep track of everything with a simple spreadsheet. It is much easier to work with software that is specifically designed for personal finances. A good program will allow you to keep track of as many accounts as you want. A great program will completely separate the different account balances (location of the money) from the budget category balances (purpose of the money). Let me explain: When you set up the software, you will enter in all of your different bank accounts with their balances. Perhaps you have three savings accounts and two checking accounts. It doesn't matter. When you are done entering those, the software will total them up, and the next job you have is assigning this money into different budget categories: your spending plan. For example, you might put some of it into a grocery category, some into an entertainment category, some will be assigned to pay your next car insurance bill, and some will be an emergency fund. (These categories are completely customizable, and your budget can be as broad or as detailed as you wish.) When you deposit your paycheck, you assign that new income into budget categories as well. It doesn't matter at this point which accounts your money are located in; the only thing that matters is that you own this money and you have access to it. Now, you might want to use a certain account for a certain budget category, but you are not required to do so. (For example, your grocery category money will probably be in your checking account, since you will be spending from it regularly. Your emergency fund will hopefully be in an account that earns a little higher interest.) Once you take this approach, you might find you don't need as many bank accounts as you thought you did, because the software does the job of separating your money into different \"\"accounts\"\" for different purposes. I've written before about the different categories of personal finance software. YNAB, Mvelopes, and EveryDollar are three examples of software that will take this approach of separating the concepts of the bank account and the budget category.\"",
"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": "b32304b701b8d58dafd682346da54418",
"text": "The short answer is that there are no great personal finance programs out there any more. In the past, I found Microsoft Money to be slick and feature rich but unfortunately it has been discontinued a few years ago. Your choices now are Quicken and Mint along with the several open-source programs that have been listed by others. In the past, I found the open source programs to be both clunky and not feature-complete for my every day use. It's possible they have improved significantly since I had last looked at them. The biggest limitation I saw with them is weakness of integration with financial service providers (banks, credit card companies, brokerage accounts, etc.) Let's start with Mint. Mint is a web-based tool (owned by the same company as Quicken) whose main feature is its ability to connect to nearly every financial institution you're likely to use. Mint aggregates that data for you and presents it on the homepage. This makes it very easy to see your net worth and changes to it over time, spending trends, track your progress on budgets and long-term goals, etc. Mint allows you to do all of this with little or no data entry. It has support for your investments but does not allow for deep analysis of them. Quicken is a desktop program. It is extremely feature rich in terms of supporting different types of accounts, transactions, reports, reconciliation, etc. One could use Quicken to do everything that I just described about Mint, but the power of Quicken is in its more manual features. For example, while Mint is centred on showing you your status, Quicken allows you to enter transactions in real-time (as you're writing a check, initiating a transfer, etc) and later reconciles them with data from your financial institutions. Link Mint, Quicken has good integration with financial companies so you can generally get away with as little or as much data entry as you want. For example, you can manually enter large checks and transfers (and later match to automatically-downloaded data) but allow small entries like credit card purchases to download automatically. Bottom line, if you're just looking to keep track of where you are at, try Mint. It's very simple and free. If you need more power and want to manage your finances on a more transactional level, try Quicken (though I believe they do not have a trial version, I don't understand why). The learning curve is steep although probably gentler than that of GnuCash. Last note on why Mint.com is free: it's the usual ad-supported model, plus Mint sells aggregated consumer behaviour reports to other institutions (since Mint has everyone's transactions, it can identify consumer trends). If you're not comfortable with that, or with the idea of giving a website passwords to all your financial accounts, you will find Quicken easier to accept. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "830ab9fb4caf0738837905aa1d8a5b57",
"text": "I generally concur with your sentiments. mint.com has 'hack me' written all over it. I know of two major open source tools for accounting: GNUCash and LedgerSMB. I use GNUCash, which comes close to meeting your needs: The 2.4 series introduced SQL DB support; mysql, postgres and sqlite are all supported. I migrated to sqlite to see how the schema looked and ran, the conclusion was that it runs fine but writing direct sql queries is probably beyond me. I may move it to postgres in the future, just so I can write some decent reports. Note that while it uses HTML for reporting, there is no no web frontend. It still requires a client, and is not multi-user safe. But it's probably about the closest to what you what that still falls under the heading of 'personal finance'. A fork of SQL Ledger, this is postgreSQL only but does have a web frontend. All the open source finance webapps I've found are designed for small to medium busineses. I believe it should meet your needs, though I've never used it. It might be overkill and difficult to use for your limited purposes though. I know one or two people in the regional LUG use LedgerSMB, but I really don't need invoicing and paystubs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80cd38443246f7d211761deb6020b2fc",
"text": "\"I've just recently launched an open source wealth management platform - wealthbot.io ... \"\"Webo\"\" is mostly targeted at RIA's to help the manage multiple portfolios, etc. Take a look at the demo at demo.wealthbot.io, you'll also find links to github, etc. there. It's a rather involved project, but if you are looking for use cases of rebalancing, portfolio accounting, custodian integration, tax loss harvesting, and many other features available at some of the popular robo-advisors, you might find it interesting.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b571809824f8d4516f9f62c50bb3d418",
"text": "\"I use the (gratis, libre) command-line program ledger for my personal accounts. It handles funds across accounts gracefully, through a feature called \"\"Virtual Accounts\"\". A transaction can add or subtract money from a virtual account, which need not balance with all the other entries in the transaction. Then it's just a matter of setting up reports to include or exclude these accounts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d225d2331f7d129a90f1c758f2b0190d",
"text": "\"Quicken. I am in the same situation. I've tried mint.com and switched back to Quicken because i want to know how much money i'll have in my accounts in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, etc. I have to admit though, quicken is getting worse and worse every year. Can't really say i \"\"recommend\"\" it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1aaff128047147c4294b6d670100fa8",
"text": "Look up You Need A Budget...the methodology is really the key and the software is elegant and practical. It's not about tracking spending, it's about planning what your dollars are going to do. The application automates much of the budget planning and data entry as it remembers your input (and is totally customizable). If you follow their basic blueprint, you can spend just minutes a week. They offer free online classes too (love this). I do not have skin in their game but have been a fan since it was just a spreadsheet. And yes, they have a mobile app, which means you can enter transactions on the go with just a few taps and then have your data synced across the cloud or just across your network.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "763b586d811fa6556c94d509dafdbe69",
"text": "\"Yodlee and Mint are good solutions if you don't mind your personal financial information being stored \"\"in the cloud\"\". I do, so I use Quicken. Quicken stores whatever you give to it for as long as you want: so the only question is how to get the credit card transactions you want into it? All my financial institutions allow me to view my credit card statements for a year back, and download them in a form Quicken can read. So you can have a record of your transactions from a year ago right now, and in a year you will have two year's worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e54f391924671d1e00e469749b7206a",
"text": "Most businesses have some sort of software to manage their client data. Most of these various software and/or services are industry specific. Black Diamond seems to be a client management tool targeting investment advisers. From the black diamond site Reach an unparalleled level of productivity and transform your client conversations. You don't need one of these unless you're a professional investment adviser with so many clients you can't track them yourself or need more robust reporting or statement generation tools. For your purposes most regular brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, TD, etc, have more than enough tools for the retail level investor. They have news feeds, security analysis papers, historical data, stock screeners, etc. You, a regular retail investor doesn't need to buy special software, your broker will generally provide these things as part of the service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c54d44fcdbe6423086dfee7e9d614c5f",
"text": "\"Note that mutual funds' quarterly/annual reports usually have this number. I generally just let my home-accounting software project my future net worth; its numbers agree well enough with those I've gotten from more \"\"professional\"\" sources such as monte-carlo modelling. (They'd agree better if I fed in all the details of my paycheck, but I don't feel like doing the work to keep that up to date.) I'm using Quicken, but I assume MS Money and other competitors have the same capability if you buy the appropriate version.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d5780a715228d9522d43d33429f4f64a
|
Postbank (Germany) - transferring money to the US - what are the best options?
|
[
{
"docid": "0878af8aa13a09e310192c9020de479d",
"text": "For those who are interested, I am answering my own question: We used Postbank and transferred 6000 Euro, we chose to Transfer in US$, and selected Shared Fees. There were three fees in total: All in all, I paid ~37$; this is about half of what I expected; and I got a perfect exchange rate. Postbank might have its downsides, but it seems they are still a good deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e128fedd7f4d35a22072d1b0e50533",
"text": "After doing this many times, my preferred method is: The reason being that the US banks will use every chance possible to take your money in fees. Usually the German bank website will tell you what the current exchange rate. You were correct in selecting Transfer in $ and got the exchange rate. In my experience if you transfer in Euros, the US bank at the other end, will take about 3-5%, because they can. Selecting OUR means that you only have the fee taken out by the Source bank. By doing shared, it looks like both banks took their full fee. If you chose OUR, I'm fairly certain you just would have paid the 1.50 and the 20. Chase would not have taken the 15.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "29e0d619dd0009cb1e01b506531c63ad",
"text": "Hmmm... As far as I know wire transfers are still the best option. If you make sure your US account accepts international wires for free (like TD Bank does) you'll have eliminated most of the costs (assuming your foreign bank doesn't charge too much for wiring the funds in the first place). Also, if your able to, you could consider wiring 6 or so months at the same time. I'm not familiar with XE.com but it seems it's not set up for transferring money so much as for trading currencies. While you could probably use it to transfer funds if you'd link both your accounts it seems a rather complicated way to go about things. Paypal could be an option if they'd allow you to set up an account in each country (or if you have a relative that could help out), but it gets more expensive than wire-transfers quickly. As for getting the best exchange rate... I've given up on that a long time ago and have accepted that as the cost of living internationally :).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e7ade037d44f4b9595d38d7ea099389",
"text": "The website http://currencyfair.com/ provides a service which gives you both a decent exchange rate (about 1% off from mid-market rate) and a moderately low fee for the transfer: 4 USD for outgoing ACH in the US, 10 USD for same-day US wire. For the reverse (sending money from the US to EU) the fees are: 3 EUR for an ACH, 8 EUR for a same-day EUR wire. It has been online for quite a while, so I assume its legit, but I'd do a transfer for a smaller sum first, to see if there are any problems, and then a second transfer for the whole sum.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac45f2f3493e3a94831f9570e181d4c0",
"text": "in my experience no-cash transactions are the best deal. Take your Portuguese credit card, get some cash ($60) for emergencies. Only pay with your credit card. It's much cheaper because it's all virtual. The best would be to set up an American bank account and transfer the money there. You can also get Paypal account, they offer credit cards too. The virtual banks, credit unions are the best option because they don't charge you for transactions. They don't have expenses with keeping actual money. Find some credit Union that accepts foreigners and take it from there. You can exchange your money on the airport because it's in tax free zone. I recommend the country of the currency since they sell you their 'valuts' and you are buying dollars. Not selling Euros... Make sure to find out what is the best deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78a3f25c1a1aebecd87f0e8740786545",
"text": "My experience is from travelling in Central Europe and Germany, so I've dealt with much smaller amounts of money, but the general principles are the same. Many Visa-brand ATM cards allow you to withdraw money from European ATMs for a 1% fee (plus any fees the bank may charge, my bank charged zero fee) in local currency. Even if the bank charges a 2-3% fee, the combined max 4% fee is going to be a lot smaller than most currency exchange places will offer. There are a lot of exchange offices that are built to scam tourists out of their money. We had no choice but to use one that ended up taking around 10% of the exchanged money (luckily we were only exchanging a small amount of currency). Call your bank and ask what their fees are, and if they are large, find a bank with small or zero fees and move your accounts there. Be sure to notify your bank that you are going to be travelling for an extended time in a foreign country. Literally any ATM (Geldautomat) accepted our card (thank you VISA). We literally walked off the plane with some USD and no foreign currency, and were able to stop at an ATM right outside our hotel (the taxi had a card reader, as most in Munich did). If you have a source of income secured within the country (which I am hoping you do if you will be living there) you could live off of your income, and use your USD to pay off things like credit card bills. Get a Travel Rewards Credit Card (or similar card that offers no foreign transaction fees or free currency transfers). Use this card for anything and everything you can, and pay it with a transfer from your US bank account. Under this method you'll probably have to convert some currency, but you can do so from an ATM easily enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3074655230caab150bc15cef1403b6f8",
"text": "The supposed cheapest way to do this is via a website like: https://transferwise.com/en They claim to have the best exchange rates compared to banks but I have never used them. If you do use them could you let us know in the comments as to how good they are?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "081d5ca1f1657f10952f8c55d28b9dd3",
"text": "We've been in this situation for about 10 years now. We don't have to send money back to Canada very often, but when we do, we typically just write a US$ check/cheque and send it to a relative back home to cash for us. We've found that the Canadian banks are much more familiar with US currency than vice versa, and typically have better exchange rates than many of the other options. That said, we haven't done an exhaustive search for the best deal. If you haven't left Canada yet, you might consider opening up a US funds account at the same bank as your Canadian funds account if the bank will allow you to transfer money between the accounts. I haven't priced out that option, so I don't know what the exchange rate would look like there. Also, you didn't ask about this, but if you have any RRSP accounts in Canada, make sure they're with a broker that is licensed to accept trades from US-based customers. Otherwise, you won't be able to move your money around to different investments within the RRSP. Once you're resident in the US, you will no longer be able to open any new accounts in Canada, but you will be able to maintain the ones you already have.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8aa4745955d3eeaef5710f6980b26d55",
"text": "You could buy a money order with your cash, then mail the money order to Deutsche Bank Germany for deposit into your account. You could also buy a prepaid debit card (like a Visa/AMEX giftcard) with your cash. Then, open a new Paypal account and add this prepaid card. Finally, send money to yourself using the prepaid card as the funding source. You could use a money transfer service, like Western Union, to transfer the cash to a friend/family in Germany. Then ask them to deposit it for you at Deutsche Bank Germany.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18397334430909aee08a750b1b380c31",
"text": "Puerto Rico: Last I checked, the Puerto Rico banking system wasn't materially different than working within the US - though some Continental US banks exclude US Territories like Guam and Puerto Rico or charge more when dealing with them. I'm not certain as to why. However, most banks don't see them any differently than a regular US bank. Regarding Wire Transfers (WT): $35 for an ad-hoc WT within the US and Puerto Rico is for the most part average. Wires cost money for the convenience of quick clearing and guaranteed funds. If you have a business/commercial account where you are doing this regularly and paying a monthly fee for a WT service, $10 - $15 each may be expected. I had a business account with US Bank where I paid $15 a month for a WT transfer service and reoccurring template (always went to the same account - AMEX in this case) and the transfers were only $15 each. But, a WT as a general rule, especially when it's only a once a month thing from a personal account, will cost around $25 - $35 in the US and Puerto Rico. As others have said, you can simply mail a personal check just as you would in the US. Many people choose to use Money Orders for Puerto Rico as they can be cashed at the post office (I believe there is an amount limit though). ACH: If you want even easier, I would use ACH. Banks in Puerto Rico use this ACH (Automatic Clearing House) system as we do in the Continental US. It will take a little longer than WT, but as you said - this is fine. Not all US Banks offer free ACH, but a number of them do. Last I checked, Citibank and USAA where among them. Banks like, BAC charges a small fee. Much smaller than a WT! This post may be useful to you: What's the difference between wire transfer and ACH?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc31334f740991c0099db5e9dec0d62d",
"text": "TD now has crossborder banking so you can set up a no-fee no-interest USD account with Tdbank.com and transfer money and pay bills in the US. You just need a minimum balance of $100. I might try Paypal before going that route though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "457d622371d738723f400eaa2f67c280",
"text": "frostbank.com is the closest thing I've found, so accepting this (my own) answer :) EDIT: editing from my comment earlier: frostbank.com has free incoming international wires, so that's a partial solution. I confirmed this works by depositing $1 (no min deposit requirement) and wiring $100 from a non-US bank. Worked great, no fees, and ACH'd it to my main back, no problems/fees. No outgoing international wires, alas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "324db0b73ebde0b9908675aaec81ed4f",
"text": "I'm travelling to the US soon and will transfer to a US $ account from either an € account or £ account. My dad recommends transferring € because it's strong at the moment compared to previously. The £ is weak compared to what it was, but still stronger than €. Which is the best option at the moment?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd8b8328d4736d1696c3855cafb9f340",
"text": "My preferred method of doing this is to get a bank draft from the US in Euros and then pay it into the French bank (my countries are Canada and UK, but the principle is the same). The cost of the bank draft is about $8, so very little more than the ATM method. If you use bigger amounts it can be less overall cost. The disadvantage is that a bank draft takes a week or so to write and a few days to clear. So you would have to plan ahead. I would keep enough money in the French account for one visit, and top it up with a new bank draft every visit or two.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71cd751d9d50bc1f90608b1e6d667ad1",
"text": "Is there a limit on how much I can send? Can I send $100K plus? No. Yes. What is the most appropriate way to send money - international wire? Is there international-wire limit restrictions I need to be aware of? Yes. No. Is there any tax obligation should I be aware of when sending money home? If you're a US tax resident (which, as a US citizen, you are), you should be aware of gift tax rules. You'll probably want to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and/or attorney, to understand the ramifications in full. If my family can return my money back in future, great, if not I really don't care, but when (if) I get my money back, will I have to pay taxes on bringing my own money back into US? No. But if you're giving it as a loan - you'll get paid interest which is taxable income to you. Is there anything else do I need to be aware of? The rules of the country which you're sending the money to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2210ac514c3dce54d6f12496a35e9a2d",
"text": "If both bank accounts are in your name, it appears that NS&I have a free International Payments Service. The Post office international payments are apparently free if you transfer at least £250. In both cases, I have not used the services and I'm not sure if there is some catch that I have missed. Perhaps they only appear free due to an unfavourable exchange rate — I don't know. See also: UK fee-free foreign transfer to own account",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c86d14f8aa9808105813991a3ee85129",
"text": "I have taken to using the service TransferWise. I have found them to be faster and cheaper and easier than using SWIFT, given the US Banking's... antiquated system of doing things. I've made dozens of transfers between my international accounts with TransferWise over the past 18 months. Some of them very large and some of them tiny, and even when there's been an issue (I once wrote an offensive joke in my narration for the transfer and they noticed) they have handled it respectfully and quickly. Prior to transferring money to US accounts, I used the SWIFT system - but SWIFT has a pretty spotty record in the US. Some banks you can do it all online but other banks, as Dheer mentioned, you have to go into the bank and sometimes find a senior staff member before you can find someone who even knows what SWIFT is.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
af1fd13713ec5dc6bf35e5415293c616
|
What reason would a person have to use checks in stores?
|
[
{
"docid": "62b3abd6bf7c68cf869c27668c3dd32d",
"text": "Rational reason. They like this method of paying. There is a delay between writing the check and having the money removed from the account. Their checkbook makes a carbon copy of the check, so they can update their balance easier. They can leave the store and update their checkbook register, or the spreadsheet or their Quicken or budget application data. They don't have to try and remember the amount, store name or date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "795b677325d844b9cac18ed793196a4a",
"text": "It's because they're used to it and it works for them. Everything other reason is meh. Used to, you could float a check to payday... have no money in the account, yet write a check a couple days before payday because you know that's how long it takes for the check to get to your bank and when it does, you'll have the money. But most (if not all) business that still accept checks (a dying subset, for sure) electronically present the check now. They take it from your hand, run it through a machine at the register, and it immediately clears the bank, just like a debit card would. We're nearing the end of the check era, atleast on personal accounts. Kids growing up now won't even know what a check is, aside from it's namesake on a type of bank account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc2ade6041922447eedfb53677d9184a",
"text": "\"Here's another rational reason: Discount. This typically works only in smaller stores, where you're talking directly to the owners, but it is sometimes possible to negotiate a few percent off the price when paying by check, since otherwise they'd have to give a few percent to the credit card company. (Occasionally the sales reps at larger stores have the authority to cut this deal, but it's far less common.) Not worth worrying about on small items, but if you're making a large purchase (a bedroom suite, for example) it can pay for lunch. And sometimes the store's willing to give you more discount than that, simply because with checks they don't have to worry about chargebacks or some of the other weirdnesses that can occur in credit card processing. Another reason: Nobody's very likely to steal you check number and try to write themselves a second check or otherwise use it without authorization. It's just too easy to steal credit card info these days to make printing checks worth the effort. But, in the end, the real answer is that there's no rational reason not to use checks. So it takes you a few seconds more to complete the transaction. What were you going to do with those seconds that makes them valuable? Especially if they're seconds that the store is spending bagging your purchase, so there's no lost time... and the effort really isn't all that different from signing the credit card authorization. Quoting Dean Inge: \"\"There are two kinds of fool. One says 'this is old, and therefore good.' The other says 'this is new, and therefore better.'\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2fb9aa8d4e4bb2f455a40c424889d31e",
"text": "Given you mention a check clearing, in addition to debit card holds as JoeTaxpayer notes, you may also have funds that are on hold for that reason. While the bank may have stated it would be a one day hold, some banks may mean business days (Monday-Friday), and so it will become available on Monday. This is because checks are not always instantly withdrawn from the other account (although this is becoming much more common post-electronic check reform), so the bank wants to make sure it actually is getting the money from the check; after all, if the check you deposited bounces, the bank doesn't want to end up footing the bill. The bank allows you some portion up front, largely as a customer service; the amount varies from bank to bank, but it's generally a small amount they don't mind risking. $200 is a pretty good amount, actually; back when I was just out of college and frequently spending the last $50 in my account, the pre-clearance amount was usually $50. If the bank does this to you regularly and you feel that it is unfair in how long it holds checks, you might consider shopping around; different banks have different hold policies, or might allow you a larger amount up front. In particular, online banks tend to have more favorable terms this way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8b519843c1cfb257ec05d9e29eb780c",
"text": "In my opinion, separating your money into separate accounts is a matter of personal preference. I can only think of two main reasons why people might suggest separating your bank accounts in this way: security and accounting. The security reasoning might go something like this: My employer has access to my bank account, because he direct deposits my salary into my account. I don't want my employer to have access to all my money, so I'll have a separate account that my employer has access to, and once the salary is deposited, I can move that money into my real account. The fault in this reasoning is that a direct deposit setup doesn't really give your employer withdrawal access to your account, and your employer doesn't have any reason to pull money out of your account after he has paid you. If fraud is going to happen, it much more likely to happen in the account that you are doing your spending out of. The other reason might be accounting. Perhaps you have several bank accounts, and you use the different accounts to separate your money for different purposes. For example, you might have a checking account that you do most of your monthly spending out of, you might have a savings account that you use to store your emergency fund, and you have more savings accounts to keep track of how much you have saved toward your next car, or your vacation, or your Christmas fund, or whatever. After you get your salary deposited, you can move some into your spending account and some into your various savings accounts for different purposes. Instead of having many bank accounts, I find it easier to do my budgeting/accounting on my own, not relying on the bank accounts to tell me how much money I have allocated to each purpose. I only have one checking account where my income goes; my own records keep track of how much money in that account is set aside for each purpose. When the checking account balance gets too large, I move a chunk of it over to my one savings account, which earns a little more interest than the checking account does. I can always move money back into my checking account if I need to spend it for some reason, and the amount of money in each of the two accounts is not directly related to the purpose of the money. In summary, I don't see a good reason for this type of general recommendation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17d0dd730c0065910517603869862e3b",
"text": "\"Although not required, #2 would work best if you used magnetic ink... That is an extra cost which you may or may not want to pay for. You can often get a free checking account and a free set of checks if you can meet the minimum requirements. This often means a higher average daily balance, direct deposit, or some combination of multiple requirements. The bank is taking a risk that a client meeting those minimum requirements while likely earn the bank more in fees and services than what they give out for \"\"free\"\" such as the account and checks. My wife and I opened a Wells Fargo checking account two years ago. Back then, we were able to open the account for free along with a free set of 250 checks. I think the requirement now requires $7,500 average daily balance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dbbb1b166003f7c3c8ec4e3dfc80c2b",
"text": "\"Thirtyfive years ago, when buying checks through one's bank was the sole option, if you got a \"\"business\"\" account with a bank, you had to buy \"\"business\"\" checks. One difference between a \"\"business\"\" account and a personal account was that on the business account, the incorporated or unincorporated company (say Simply Wonderful Apps) had the option of changing from John Doe to Richard Roe as the Treasurer of Simply Wonderful Apps and the person signing the checks, whereas a personal account in John Doe's name could not be changed to allow Richard Roe signature authority over the account. For a self-employed person doing business as Simply Wonderful Apps, a personal checking account would do just as well, since the need to change the person responsible for signing checks might never arise. It was, of course, important to have a separate checking account for the business because it made book-keeping simpler and also separated business expenses deductible on Schedule C from personal expenses. But it was not necessary to have a business account or business checks to run a small business. In addition to the various advantages described in other answers, one advantage that I found for larger checks is that various money management programs could do things like print an address below the name on (computer-printable) checks so that after folding, the check could be put into a window envelope and mailed directly. For the one check to a page format, the programs could print additional information on the blank area below the check (e.g. explanations about the check, company logo etc. So, it was convenient if one had to write several checks each month. But if outgoing checks are infrequent and extra security is not much of an issue, there is less reason to spend a lot extra on business style checks rather than the personal style checks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaa3ec379f9df134bba3510cf8516729",
"text": "Why would such a large discount make business sense to the restaurant? The legit reasons could be; Or can I assume that the restaurant is trying to avoid leaving a paper trail so that they could avoid paying tax? The illegal reasons could be;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d532e3b1d1f2c0071bed4902ac56367",
"text": "\"I have seen the notation KTB written on documents in the place where you put an identifying number of some kind. It stands for Known to Branch and means the tellers recognize you. It's been written on documents of mine when I was depositing cheques large enough that someone else had to come and initial the transaction, and I presume that some people might have also had to show extra ID, but I didn't. Just a month or so ago I was in line behind an old man at a branch where everyone has to put their card in and enter a pin to do transactions. I heard him tell the teller \"\"I don't have a card. Never did. Don't hold with that.\"\" Another teller came by and said something quietly to the teller (I presume it was \"\"that's old Mr Smith, we all know him\"\") and the transaction appears to have taken place without any ID being passed across the counter. So yes, at least in Canada, if the tellers recognize you, the requirements for ID are less than you might think. It's a bit of a long con to spend 25 years going into a branch and conducting all your business under a particular name, just so you can do a transaction or two without ID, though :-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "279cea4345022801bb2adfdb5df86450",
"text": "The very first time I bought a new car I wrote out a personal check for $5000 (this was a looong time ago!). And got a call from the sales person that he had called the bank and was told that I did not have that much money in my checking account! I explained that I had just that day transferred money from savings to checking. The sales person accepted that and there was never a problem after that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc5e574b884a22dd65f5ba40b6e14f6d",
"text": "\"One other aspect of this is that the bank will plan to eventually approach the merchant that they are sending paper checks to and say \"\"why don't you sign up with us and give us your ACH info, and we won't send you checks?\"\" And a lot of merchants will say \"\"sure\"\", because someone has to open those checks and take them down to the bank, and that isn't free. And that time while the money is in the mail, or sitting on someone's desk to be deposited, that is money that isn't working for you. So everyone wins.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90f4a09fd47702b34fd698aa96b6fdb0",
"text": "\"You can spend the money quite quickly. The problem is that if there is something wrong with the check, the bank will ask you for the money back. If the check is from a trusted source (a trusted friend, a business with good reputation etc.) that's fine. If the money is from an untrusted source, make sure that having to pay back the money doesn't get you into trouble. Since most people are honest, this is fine for a small amount, but if it's more than you can afford to pay back, don't spend it. A simple scam is that people send you checks, \"\"by mistake\"\" the check is for the wrong amount, say $910 instead of $190, and they ask you to send the difference back. So you put $910 into your account, send them $720, and six weeks later your bank asks for their $910 back. If someone pays you too much on a check and asks you to pay them the difference, you know it is a scam.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edeccec132105acaf4d53566108ccb90",
"text": "There is no reason you must buy the bank's printed check. There are many places both physical stores and on line the offer check printing. From what I've seen, the requirement is the use of a magnetic ink the bank's equipment can properly scan. I may not even be correct there if they've all gone fully optical. The checks you buy on line are a fraction of the cost the bank would charge you. Edit - On searching, I find VistaPrint offers free checks. I've not ordered checks from them, but I suspect free orders require you pay shipping. I've used VistaPrint for business cards, promotional items, and holiday cards. I can say, I've been pleased with their quality. Update - The free checks from VistaPrint are no longer available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea18b2178b61681cabef1170f46629e9",
"text": "Some banks charge their own customers if they make use of a teller. That is what you are doing. You are going to a bank where you are not a customer and requesting a transaction that requires a teller. If you cash the check by going though your bank, the issuer's bank only handles it as a non-teller transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7f53388750c3c3aa69d751131546f00",
"text": "From my reading of the wikipedia page (CRT), this only happens if you deposit or withdraw currency, not checks. The idea behind this is that checks, ACH, etc. leave paper trails that can be tracked. Cash doesn't, so it gets this extra level of scrutiny. If yu get a cashiers check or a money order to pay a bill, I don't think a CRT is created. If you withdraw $15,000 to buy a car in cash (1 stack of $100 bills), then a CRT would be generated. It still isn't a problem, as long as you can show a bill of sale showing where the money went (or came from, if you are the seller). The IRS has a FAQ about this. It says (taken from several spots at that page): Cash is money. It is currency and coins of the United States and any other country. A cashier’s check, bank draft, traveler’s check, or money order with a face amount of more than $10,000 is not treated as cash and a business does not have to file Form 8300 when it receives them. These items are not defined as cash because, if they were bought with currency, the bank or other financial institution that issued them must file a Currency Transaction Report. The exception to this is if you are buying something with a resale value of more than $10k with a check, money order, etc of less than $10k.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f41252df5a5b7291883d395819431264",
"text": "I think he means you aren't legally obligated to show the receipt. However, I'm not sure that store workers know the exact laws, and I don't know what your luck would be refusing to show them. My guess is refusing would get you in an awkward argument and managers would be called and it wouldn't be worth the hassle compared to just showing the receipt in the first place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f18fdc3c741dbc299143f001b270f502",
"text": "I doubt it has to do with the check though. Old people can be slow sometimes. I bet a younger person could write the check in a Reasonable amount of time. I lost my debt card a while back and needed groceries before I got my replacement it only added about a minute of transaction time for $200 in groceries which already takes a few minutes just to ring up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85a8fa3ea0118924eac2c26224b0fb5d",
"text": "\"I believe the banks are protecting themselves when they \"\"require\"\" your endorsement. Years ago. they used to ask for your endorsement, and not require it. If you endorse the check, it legally authorizes them to debit your account, if the check is later returned for non-sufficient funds (NSF). It mostly protects the bank, and not the customer.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3723a4fdaad705ab05c7ea8082883767
|
High-risk investing is better for the young? Why?
|
[
{
"docid": "7294853a49f545ac4cd90e8e3e97f261",
"text": "What is the importance or benefit of the assumption that high-risk is preferable for younger people/investors instead of older people? Law of averages most high risk investments [stocks for examples, including Mutual funds]. Take any stock market [some have data for nearly 100 years] on a 15 year or 30 years horizon, the year on year growth is around 15 to 18 percentage. Again depends on which country, market etc ... Equally important every stock market in the same 15 year of 30 year time, if you take specific 3 year window, it would have lost 50% or more value. As one cannot predict for future, someone who is 55 years, if he catches wrong cycle, he will lose 50%. A young person even if he catches the cycle and loses 50%, he can sit tight as it will on 30 years average wipe out that loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0a96be69a097f0ddb3916ff126d5baa",
"text": "The reason that you are advised to take more risk while you are young is because the risk is often correlated to a short investment horizon. Young people have 40-50 years to let their savings grow if they get started early enough. If you need the money in 5-15 years (near the end of your earning years), there is much more risk of a dip that will not correct itself before you need the money than if you don't need the money for 25-40 years (someone whose career is on the rise). The main focus for the young should be growth. Hedging your investments with gold might be a good strategy for someone who is worried about the volatility of other investments, but I would imagine that gold will only reduce your returns compared to small-cap stocks, for example. If you are looking for more risk, you can leverage some of your money and buy call options to increase the gains with upward market moves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e256880a79a54701a562389d0a2fd2ab",
"text": "If you spent your whole life earning the same portfolio that amounts $20,000, the variance and volatility of watching your life savings drop to $10,000 overnight has a greater consequence than for someone who is young. This is why riskier portfolios aren't advised for older people closer to or within retirement age, the obvious complementary group being younger people who could lose more with lesser permanent consequence. Your high risk investment choices have nothing to do with your ability to manage other people's money, unless you fail to make a noteworthy investment return, then your high risk approach will be the death knell to your fund managing aspirations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "662eb29ae1c627e71fd606bad9f67009",
"text": "There's two reasons. One is that you have a longer time horizon, other answers cover that. The second is that for someone who is younger, most of their capital is human capital in terms of their future work output (and earnings). If you're 25 and your $20,000 portfolio gets wiped out, that's only a small amount of your total earnings. You still have 45 years in which to earn money (and invest it). If you're 65 and your $1,000,000 portfolio gets wiped out, you're in much bigger trouble. Note that this means that in certain circumstances, a younger investor would want to be more conservative. If you're 25, but got a million dollar settlement for an injury which means you can't work anymore, you want to be more conservative than your average 25-year-old. If you're 65, and just sold a business for which you get $1,000,000 in two years, you can be more aggressive with your currently invest-able portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3a90085114bcdc92d97809050fef1f2",
"text": "I'm going to diverge from most of the opinions expressed here. It is common for financial advisors to assume that your portfolio should become less risky as you get older. Explanations for this involve hand-waving and saying that you can afford to lose money when young because you have time to make up for it later. However, the idea that portfolios should become less risky as you get older is not well-grounded in finance theory. According to finance theory, regardless of your age and wealth, returns are desirable and risk is undesirable. Your risk aversion is the only factor that should decide how much risk you put in your portfolio. Do people become more risk averse as they get older? Sometimes. Not always. In fact, there are theoretical reasons why people might want more aggressive portfolios as they age. For example: As people become wealthier they generally become less risk averse. Young people are not normally very wealthy. When you are young, most of your wealth is tied up in the value of your human capital. This wealth shifts into your portfolio as you age. Depending on your field, human capital can be extremely risky--much riskier than the market. Therefore to maintain anything like a constant risk profile over your life, you may want very safe investments when young. You mention being a hedge fund manager. If we enter a recession, your human capital will take a huge hit because you will have a hard time raising money or getting/keeping a job. No one will value your skills and your future career prospects will fall. You will not want the double whammy of large losses in your portfolio. Hedge fund managers are clear examples of people who will want a very safe personal portfolio during their early working years and may be willing to invest very aggressively in their later working and early retirement years. In short, the received wisdom that portfolios should start out risky and get safer as we age is not always, and perhaps not even usually, true. A better guide to how much risk you should have in your portfolio is how you respond to questions that directly measure your risk aversion. This questions ask things like how much you would pay to avoid the possibility of a 20% loss in your portfolio with a certain probability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "231edf979c5c89266277168a74e11be4",
"text": "\"There is no rule-of-thumb that fits every person and every situation. However, the reasons why this advice is generally applicable to most people are simple. Why it is good to be more aggressive when you are young The stock market has historically gone up, on average, over the long term. However, on its way up, it has ups and downs. If you won't need your investment returns for many years to come, you can afford to put a large portion of your investment into the volatile stock market, because you have plenty of time for the market to recover from temporary downturns. Why it is good to be more conservative when you are older Over a short-term period, there is no certainty that the stock market will go up. When you are in retirement, most people withdraw/sell their investments for income. (And once you reach a certain age, you are required to withdraw some of your retirement savings.) If the market is in a temporary downturn, you would be forced to \"\"sell low,\"\" losing a significant portion of your investment. Exceptions Of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines. If you are a young person who can't help but watch your investments closely and gets depressed when seeing the value go down during a market downturn, perhaps you should move some of your investment out of stocks. It will cost you money in the long term, but may help you sleep at night. If you are retired, but have more saved than you could possibly need, you can afford to risk more in the stock market. On average, you'll come out ahead, and if a downturn happens when you need to sell, it won't affect your overall situation much.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57d1348dfcd941101dd44c34c0bd49fa",
"text": "Would my high-risk investment choices, aside from the main question, have any bearing on the road I want to go down and test (managing mutual/hedge funds)? Absolutely! First of all, understand that hedge fund managers are managing other people's money. Those people desire a certain risk profile and expected return, so your hedge fund will need to meet those expectations. Plus, hedge fund managers don't typically get fixed fees alone - they also get a percentage of any gains the fund makes; so managers have a vested interest in making sure that hedge funds perform well.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f276d8ccfb139215f4493621ad208221",
"text": "\"Building on the excellent explanation by \"\"Miichael Kjörling\"\": Why would you rather \"\"term deposit\"\" your money in a bank and only earn interest of certain percentage but not not invest in stocks / real state and other opportunities where you will not only earn much higher dividends / profit but will have an opportunity for capital gains, multiple times like Apple's last 4 years(AAPL) ?? This is all down to risk / reward and risk taking. More risk = More profit opportunities / More Losses ( More Headache) Less risk(Govt BONDS) = Less profit / Less Losses (peace of mind)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fdf8698afbbce4fdfcff1a82a3e7435",
"text": "\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \"\"income\"\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55baf837a5adacbc1887364ddc7a650d",
"text": "As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old).",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8fa04eaae270a59d75c5b36c12e036b",
"text": "\"Between \"\"fresh out of college\"\" and \"\"I have no debts, and a support system in place which because of which I can take higher risks.\"\" I would put every penny I could afford in the riskiest investment platform I was willing to. Holding onto money in a bank account is likely to cost you %1-%2 a year depending on what interest rates are and what inflation looks like. Money invested in a market could loose it all for you or you could become an overnight millionaire. Loosing it all would suck but you are young you will bounce back. Losing it slowly to inflation is just silly when you are young. If there is something you know you have to do in the next few years start to save for it but otherwise use the fact that you are young and have a safety net to try to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cc1cbf238b28b58a628df8b2952238f",
"text": "he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance. It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work. Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion. Period. It says nothing about your age. Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone. In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case. At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable. With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio. Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07ff8f6bdf26e89b18a978a60f4e1929",
"text": "\"Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward. That is not true. Roughly, the mathematical analogue of \"\"higher risk and higher reward\"\" is \"\"higher standard deviation and higher mean\"\". In other words, the aggressive strategy does have a higher expected rate of return (higher mean). Its disadvantage is that it has a higher likelihood of incurring intermediate losses (and/or higher magnitude of intermediate losses) on the way. This is classically illustrated with the following chart - from Vanguard. You can see that the average return is greater the riskier the portfolio (i.e., the more allocated to stocks relative to bonds), but this higher average return comes at the price of a greater range of possible returns. With an aggressive portfolio, you take a greater risk of losses at any given moment for a greater chance of gains over a long period. Given this, it should be obvious why the advice is to be aggressive early on. Early in life, you don't care about whether your current position is up or down, because you're not taking the money out. If your portfolio is down, you just leave the money in there until it goes back up again. Later in life, you need to spend the money; you now care about whether your current position is up or down, because you can't afford to wait out a down market and may have to realize a loss by selling. It's important to note that the expected return is always greater for a higher-risk portfolio, as is the expected risk; the expected rate of return doesn't magically change as you age. What changes is your ability to absorb losses to hold out for later gains.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cab6f29603421ac01a73951b5efaa1ac",
"text": "\"The article \"\"Best Stock Fund of the Decade: CGM Focus\"\" from the Wall Street Journal in 2009 describe the highest performing mutual fund in the USA between 2000 and 2009. The investor return in the fund (what the shareholders actually earned) was abysmal. Why? Because the fund was so volatile that investors panicked and bailed out, locking in losses instead of waiting them out. The reality is that almost any strategy will lead to success in investing, so long as it is actually followed. A strategy keeps you from making emotional or knee-jerk decisions. (BTW, beware of anyone selling you a strategy by telling you that everyone in the world is a failure except for the few special people who have the privilege of knowing their \"\"secrets.\"\") (Link removed, as it's gone dead)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0805a7b927cefad4bf4b37891f454293",
"text": "\"A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/\"\"aggression\"\" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "cc3b53420f83deaefdcd21bacc9b616d",
"text": "Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62f08eaa49bccd9597553e00a23f7716",
"text": "\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ff6f273e82d001cb5990f389e723ced",
"text": "\"The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why? Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of \"\"assuming risk\"\" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also. But that's not an excuse to go leveraged anyway; it's a reason to hold back. In fact, regular stocks are sufficiently risky that most people probably shouldn't be holding a 100% stock portfolio. They should be tempering that risk with bonds, instead, and increasing the size of their bond holdings over time. The appropriate time to use leverage is when you have information which limits your risk. You have done research, and have reason to believe that you understand the future of an individual stock/index better than the rest of the stock market does. You calculate that the potential for achieving returns with leverage outweighs the risks. Then you dump your money into the leveraged position. (In exchange for this, the market receives information about anticipated future returns of this instrument, because of the price movement which occurs as a result of someone putting his money where his mouth is.) If you're just looking to dump money into broad market indicies in a leveraged fashion, you're doing it wrong. There is no free money. (Ed. Which is not to say there's not money. There's lots of money. But if you go looking for the free kind, you won't find it, and may end up with money that you thought was free but was actually quite expensive.) Edit. Okay, so you don't like my answer. I'm not surprised. I'm giving you a real answer instead of a \"\"make free money\"\" answer. Okay. Here's your \"\"how to make free money\"\" answer. Assume you are using a constant leverage ratio over the length of time you've invested your money, and you don't get to just jump into and out of the market (that's market-timing, not leverage) so you have to stay invested. You're going to have a scenario which falls into one of these categories: The S&P500 historically rises over time. The average rate of return probably exceeds the average interest rate. So the ideal leverage ratio is infinite. Of course, this is a stupid answer in real life because you can't pull that off. Your risk tolerance is too low and you will have trouble finding a lender willing to lend you unsecured money, and you'll probably lose all your money in a crash sooner or later. Ultimately it's a stupid answer because you're asking the wrong question. You should probably ask a better question: \"\"when I use leverage to gain additional exposure to risk, am I being properly compensated for assuming that risk?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "25ae5486b8a65b1b44e753ea7aba523b",
"text": "\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ce03e3606c5fe078c9ec16eb5847daac
|
What debts are both partners liable for in a 'community property' state?
|
[
{
"docid": "72bcd4226812b442d53b84d2719e5408",
"text": "No two states have the same exact laws regarding community property. I would recommend asking a competent financial advisor in your area, as they would be more familiar with the local statutes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "305299bd0445f70b928a386809b620c3",
"text": "\"(Yes, I know this is a seven year old question.) Does this only apply to debts that were taken on during marriage Yes or to all debts of both partners? No. The important thing to remember is that it's both debts and assets acquired during the marriage which are shared. This comes from the reality that men in the olden times were the ones in business, accumulating wealth, etc while the woman \"\"made the home\"\". The working assumption was that the woman who made the home was an equal partner with the man, since he benefited from a good home, and she benefited from his income. The fact that pre-marriage debts and assets were not community property also protected the woman, because she was able to then take back her dowry and use that to support herself. (N.B. - I live in a CP state.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c5a5ed7bb766e7dc97275d21ffc8f2e",
"text": "I know one piece of information that can help you (in a macabe sort of way) - from what my wife has told me, if your partner dies, you are not responsible for paying for their debts, especially student loans. I expect the same thing for credit cards - if someone were to happen to charge $2,000 on their credit card and get hit by a bus, the credit card company can cajole and plead for you to pay for it, but you have no legal requirement to do so. Unfortunately I do not have as much information about as if you spouse is living.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "312a0b54124fbd8649a9f9aecd4b5b30",
"text": "I second (or fifth?) the answers of the other users in that this should have been foreseen and discussed prior to entering the partnership. But to offer a potential solution: If the mortgage company allows you to assume the whole mortgage (big if) you could buy the other partner out. To determine what a fair buyout would be, take the current value of the house less the remaining mortgage to get the current equity. Half that is each partner's current gain (or potentially loss), and could be considered a fair buyout. At this point the partner realizes any gains made in the last 5 years, and from now on the whole house (and any future gains or losses) will be yours. Alternatively your partner could remain a full partner (if s/he so desires) until the house sells. You would see the house as a separate business, split the cost as you have, and you would pay fair market rent each month (half of which would come back to you). A third option would be to refinance the house, with you as a sole mortgage holder. To factor in how much your partner should receive out of the transaction, you can take his/her current equity and subtract half of the costs associated with the refi. I would also recommend both of you seek out the help of a real estate lawyer at this point to help you draft an agreement. It sounds like you're still on good terms, so you could see a lawyer together; this would be helpful because they should know all the things you should look out for in a situation like this. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2fdf74a17ba25e4650efadf59e8b366",
"text": "The first and most important thing to consider is that this is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION, and needs to be treated as such. Nail down Absolutely All The Details, specifically including what happens if either of you decides it's time to move and wants to sell off your share of the property. Get at least one lawyer involved in drawing up that contract, perhaps two so there's no risk of conflict of interest. What's your recourse, or his, if the other stops making their share of the payments? Who's responsible for repairs and upkeep? If you make renovations, how does that affect the ownership percentage, and what kind of approval do you need from him first, and how do you get it, and how quickly does he have to respond? If he wants to do something to maintain his investment, such as reroofing, how does he negotiate that with you -- especially if it's something that requires access to the inside of the house? Who is the insurance paid by, or will each of you be insuring it separately? What are the tax implications? Consider EVERY possible outcome; the fact that you're friends now doesn't matter, and in fact arguments over money are one of the classic things that kill friendships. I'd be careful making this deal with a relative (though in fact I did loan my brother a sizable chunk of change to help him bridge between his old house and new house, and that's registered as a mortgage to formalize it). I'd insist on formalizing who owns what even with a spouse, since marriages don't always last. With someone who's just a co-worker and casual friend, it's business and only business, and needs to be both evaluated and contracted as such to protect both of you. If you can't make an agreement that you'd be reasonably comfortable signing with a stranger, think long and hard about whether you want to sign it at all. I'll also point out that nobody is completely safe from long-term unemployment. The odds may be low, but people do get blindsided. The wave of foreclosures during and after the recent depression is direct evidence of that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2cf81c153c54c9234313f8aa4c5e512",
"text": "Get a lawyer to put this in contract form, with everything spelled out explicitly. What is fair is what the two of you agree upon. My own suggestion: Divide the property into things which are yours, his, and shared, then have each of you be responsible for all your costs plus half the shared costs, but get all the benefits of your half. That would mean that if he rents out his half, all the rental income is his; if you decide to live in your half, all the savings of not paying rent are yours. Each of you pays your half of mortgage, insurance, and other shared costs. Repairs to shared infrastructure should be done by someone both of you trust. If you agree the work is needed and he does it rather than your hiring someone, you owe him the appropriate percentage of the costs; the two of you will need to agree on whether you owe him for that percentage of his time as well. Make sure you agree on some mechanism for one person offering to buy the other out, or to sell their half to the other party... or potentially to someone else entirely. (Personally, I would try to do that at soonest opportunity, to avoid some of the ways this can go wrong -- see past comments about the hazards of guaranteeing a loan; this works or doesn't work similarly.) Does that address your question?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28485e0d5f2e225bab5d6de3d6a31d45",
"text": "Definitely get a lawyer to write up all the details of the partnership in a formal agreement. If your ex does not want to do this, that is a bad sign. You both need to be clear about expectations and responsibilities in this partnership, and define an exit strategy in the case one of you wants out. This is the most fair to both parties. Generally, what is common is that property is split cleanly when the relationship ends. I would strongly recommend you both work towards a clean split with no joint property ownership. How this looks depends on your unique situation. To address your questions 2 and 3: You have two roles here - tenant and owner. As a 50% owner, you are running a business with a partner. That business will have assets (home), income, expenses, and profit. You basically need to run this partnership as a simple business. All the rent income (your rent and the other tenant's) should go into a separate account. The mortgage and all other housing expenses are then paid from only this account. Any excess is then profit that may be split 50/50. All expenses should be agreed upon by both of you, either by contract or by direct communication. You should see a financial professional to make sure accounting and taxes are set up properly. Under this system, your ex could do work on the house and be paid from the business income. However, they are responsible to you to provide an estimate and scope of work, just like any other contractor. If you as a joint owner agree to his price, he then could be paid out of the business income. This reduces the business cash flow for the year accordingly. You can probably see how this can get very complicated very fast. There is really no right or wrong answer on what both of you decide is fair and best. For the sake of simplicity and the least chance of a disaster, the usual and recommended action is to cleanly split all property. Good Luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cd038c053f0255c2835037a6e81d46d",
"text": "The ownership of the house depends on what the original deed transferring title at the time of purchase says and how this ownership is listed in government records where the title transfer deed is registered. Hopefully the two records are consistent. In legal systems that descended from British common law (including the US), the two most common forms of ownership are tenancy in common meaning that, unless otherwise specified in the title deed, each of the owners has an equal share in the entire property, and can sell or bequeath his/her share without requiring the approval of the others, and joint tenancy with right of survivorship meaning that all owners have equal share, and if one owner dies, the survivors form a new JTWROS. Spouses generally own property, especially the home, in a special kind of JTWROS called tenancy by the entirety. On the other hand, the rule is that unless explicitly specified otherwise, tenancy in common with equal shares is how the owners hold the property. Other countries may have different default assumptions, and/or have multiple other forms of ownership (see e.g. here for the intricate rules applicable in India). Mortgages are a different issue. Most mortgages state that the mortgagees are jointly and severally liable for the mortgage payments meaning that the mortgage holder does not care who makes the payment but only that the mortgage payment is made in full. If one owner refuses to pay his share, the others cannot send in their shares of the mortgage payment due and tell the bank to sue the recalcitrant co-owner for his share of the payment: everybody is liable (and can be sued) for the unpaid amount, and if the bank forecloses, everybody's share in the property is seized, not just the share owned by the recalcitrant person. It is, of course, possible to for different co-owners to have separate mortgages for their individual shares, but the legalities (including questions such as whose lien is primary and whose secondary) are complicated. With regard to who paid what over the years of ownership, it does not matter as far as the ownership is concerned. If it is a tenancy in common with equal shares, the fact that the various owners paid the bills (mortgage payments, property taxes, repairs and maintenance) in unequal amounts does not change the ownership of the property unless a new deed is recorded with the new percentages. Now, the co-owners may decide among themselves as a matter of fairness that any money realized from a sale of the property should be divided up in accordance with the proportion that each contributed during the ownership, but that is a different issue. If I were a buyer of property titled as tenancy in common, I (or the bank who is lending me money to make the purchase) would issue separate checks to each co-seller in proportion to the percentages listed on the deed of ownership, and let them worry about whether they should transfer money among themselves to make it equitable. (Careful here! Gift taxes might well be due if large sums of money change hands).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a9a715a99e75fda4a54ce531c8a5a61",
"text": "'If i co-sign that makes me 100% liable if for any reason you can't or won't pay. Also this shows up on a credit report just like it's my debt. This limits the amount i can borrow for any reason. I don't want to take on your debt, that's your business and i don't want to make it mine'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c72e9fc70147ec03d97b8e463320567",
"text": "The contract is not with the guests. The guests will not be paying the $500 fee, the people paying for the wedding have a contract and they will be required to pay the fee. That's reasonable to me. If an employee causes damage the employer can be liable; if I have guests at my home who cause damage I can be found liable. Why not wedding guests?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cfb67b87411b8ab1a0a5d43f0907389",
"text": "In my view you are going through quite a bit of logistics to achieve this. Best is drop this idea. If all of you are paying equally, then there is virtually no gain. A better pact is not to gift each other on wedding. We want to open a joint fixed deposit account in name of each one of us which should be locked-in till 2020 Yes it is possible to have Joint Account with multiple names. Ideally all should be present or a Power of Attorney can be created to include names of people who are not present. We want our money to be risk free and secured. Risk free and secured will mean Fixed Deposits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "394bc28a2c7d606a83f44eb928d11e84",
"text": "Are there any risks you're overlooking? I think if you're considering this at all you're overlooking all of the risks... namely, if you think the issue with him not paying on the loan is the procedure involved with initiating collections or taking him to court for a judgement you're severely underestimating actually collecting after you're awarded a judgement. Typically when people stop paying a debt, its because they don't have money. A judgement doesn't change that. Now you could include in the promissory note a lien on some piece of his property, if he has one. Even with the lien and a judgement against him you can't do much. There are laws related to lending by individuals, related to debt collection, maximum/minimum interest rates; there may even be a law that mandating individuals may only assess simple interest. I doubt you'll be able to find a formal institution that will take over as nothing more than an administrator, though you might as well start researching how to sell the debt once your colleague defaults. IF you can legally amortize the loan at 4% and $450 per month, you're not made whole until about month 78. Months 79 through about 90 will be your profit zone. At this rate of return I'd just buy a muni... If you're willing to kiss this money good bye, and lending it generates more amusement to you than setting it on fire, go for it!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24b171d757ef9cc138878484923fbde",
"text": "\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c17aff7f263c74b9a7f8eb3c8981ca68",
"text": "Owing money to family members can create serious problems. Taking out a purchase-money mortgage to pay your sister for her share is the best way to avoid future friction and, possibly, outright alienation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b09536c018ae55f2e49ef12bf93dd070",
"text": "\"Both names are on the deed, so the property is jointly owned. You're going to need the second person's signature to be able to sell the property. Ideally the way to know \"\"what happens now\"\" is to consult the written agreement you made before you purchased the house together. The formula for dividing up assets when dissolving your partnership is whatever you agreed to up front. (Your up-front agreement could have said \"\"if you move out, you forfeit any claim to the property\"\".) It sounds like you don't have that, so you'll have to come to some (written) agreement with your partner before you proceed. If you can't come to an agreement, then you'll end up in court, a judge will split up the assets, and the only winners there are the lawyers...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f2563cad205c94298096d00029a66ad",
"text": "Depending on jurisdiction, the fact that you made some payments might give you an ownership share in the house in your own right. What share would be a complex question because you might need to consider both the mortgage payments made and maintenance. Your sister might also be able to argue that she was entitled to some recompense for the risk she describes of co-signing, and that's something that would be very hard to quantify, but clearly you would also be entitled to similar recompense in respect of that, as you also co-signed. For the share your mother owned, the normal rules of inheritance apply and by default that would be a 50-50 split as JoeTaxpayer said. You imply that the loan is still outstanding, so all of this only applies to the equity previously built up in the house prior to your mother's death. If you are the only one making the ongoing payments, I would expect any further equity built up to belong solely to you, but again the jurisdiction and the fact that your sister's name is on the deeds could affect this. If you can't resolve this amicably, you might need to get a court involved and it's possible that the cost of doing so would outweigh the eventual benefit to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2551584505861e4c97a7fe6477e8276",
"text": "I think I'm reading that you cosigned a loan with a friend, and they've stopped paying on their loan. Not a whole lot of options here. You'll have to pay the loan off by yourself or allow the loan to go into collections in hopes that you'll get more money later and pay it off then. Small claims court is definitely an option at that point. Next time, perhaps try not to cosign loans with friends unless you really trust them and are confident that you can pay the loan off if they cannot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c586d75c50139784c3060279ab46c069",
"text": "Myself and my partner do things a little differently to most. We split accommodation and utilities payments by net income proportion to ensure that we both have the same amount of spending money. For example; The really important bit is net income. We take off a whole bunch of payments, e.g; Our contributions go into a joint account and the rest is our money to spend. The upshot is that we both get to enjoy the same minimum quality of life because we both get the same amount to spend at the bar.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.